Full text of "Whist; American leads and their history; with a review of later innovations in the game"

See other formats

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

Chap. Copyright

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WHIST

AMERICAN LEADS AND
THEIR HISTORY

WITH A REVIEW OF

LATER INNOVATIONS
IN THE GAME

BY /

NICHOLAS BROWSE TRIST

NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

1900

L-

TWO COPIES RECEIVEI. ,

Library of QGggttHi
Office of tha

FED 1 - 1900

54268

^ '^^'^ ^^^^^ reserved.

CONTENTS

The old-fashioned player Page 4

First whist-case sent to London Field 8

Proctor's opinion of whist as an intellectual pur-
suit 13

Phiys supposed to be new, date back lo 1742 or

earlier 16, 56, 57

Return leads, when first introduced 17

Origin of short whist 17

Call for trumps introduced 18

''Little Whist School" 19

Dr. William Pole asks for model games of whist 23

Henry Jones responds 22

"Cavendish " ventures into print 23

Pole's fundamental theory of the game 25

Protective discard from strength 25

Penultimate lead 26

Echo of the call. 26

Change in second lead from ace, queen, knave,

more than four in suit 26

Ante-penultimate lead 28

Reverse discard 29

" Change-your-suit " signal 29, 92

Contents

Play of second hand with king and a small

card Page 30, 65

American Leads — Maxims 31

Lead of lowest of a four-card suit — example. ... 33

Underlying principle of First Maxim 34

Second Maxim explained 36

Third Maxim explained. 38

History of American Leads begun 43

Third Maxim the first one elaborated 44

Application of whist principles not readily per-
ceived 45

Bearing of lead of lowest of four-card suit, on

play of second hand, overlooked 46

Lead of original fourth-best after ace, next de-
veloped 47

Fourth-best wheo suit is opened with low card. 48
ludepeodently fornuilated b}^ " Cavendish . . . 48
Claim made for General Drayson as originator of

fourth-best lead examined, 49

"Cavendish" comes out in Field in favor of

American Leads 50

J\[ogul," "Pembridge, "and others attack Amer-
ican Leads 52

Cavendish" continues to champion them 52

Title-page motto on pamphlet entitled "The

American Lead Controversy" 53

Result of Dr. Pole's analysis of the case of cov-
ering honor second hand 54

Analj^sis of play of third hand by "Cavendish"

— unblocking play 54

Hoyle gives an example of unblocking 56

The sub-echo 57

Lead of knave from head of sequence aban-
doned 59

Contents

Lead of queen wilh king, more than four in suit,

Paire 59

Lead of queen with ace, king, more than four in

suit 61

Lead of knave with ace, king, queen, more than

four in suit 61

Change in Second Maxim made necessary by

new lead of queen 61

The eleven rule 63

American Leads simplified 66

System as a whole should be called "Anglo-
American Leads " 68

Second Maxim as originally formulated at-
tacked 69

Author's reasons for adhering to it 72

Supported by Mr. C. D. P. Hamilton 76

Tendency of improvement in whist 77

American people take up the game 81

Trumps showing play 84

Irregular lead as a call for trumps through a

turned-up honor 85

Echoing with high indifferent cards. 87

The three-trumps echo 88

The discard 95

The rotary discard. , 97

**Force-me and don't-force-me " discard 101

Street attachment 103

Fourth-best lead from ace, five in suit 105

Comments of Mr. Whitfeld on the result of his

analysis of that lead 106

Author's remarks on same. . . 109

Lead from top-of-nothing " 115

Lead of ten from queen, knave, ten 116

Lead of fourth -best from king, knave, ten 117

Contents

Proposed change of lead from ace, king, queen,

knave, five or more in suit Page 121

New systems 123

Howell sy stem - 124

Short-suit system 124

Short-suit game not sound 129

Long-suit scientific game compared with others. 131

Playing to the score 135

Example by James Clay 136

Advice to beginners 139

Effects of multiplicity of systems 141

Anglo-American Leads, in detail. 145

Number of leads from each card. 155

Concluding remarks 158

part ir

Tlie History of American Leads, and, in-
cidentally, the Progress of Whist
from the days of Hoyle to
the year 1892

Whist

WHAT ! another work on Whist to
study? Is^o, my disheartened,
book -ridden learner: only a
fra^j^ment of AVhist historv, of which I
happen to know something, for I propose
to tell you about American Leads, trust-
ing that my narrative will prove inter-
esting, and, mayhap, instructive too.

About thirty years ago I began to play
whist with some friends. AVe had no book
to guide us; in fact, our ignorance was
such that, w^ith the exception of the im-
mortal Hoyle, we did not know even the
names of any w^riters on the game. So
we began by playing as best we could,
using what common -sense and judgment
we possessed, fancying all the w^hile that
we were playing a pretty good game of

Whist

whist. Xow you know what kind of a
game that is, for, although the number is
gradually diminishing, you still frequent-
ly meet the old-fashioned, common-sense
player, as he complacently styles himself,
who scorns the books and holds in con-
tempt the machine players/' and he
often proves the sincerit}" of his opinion
by being ready to back up with money
his game against the book game. You
find, not infrequently, that he has a good
memor\^, and is not lacking in perception;
he plays indifferently the lowest or high-
est of a sequence, and, excepting from
some combinations of high cards, opens
everv suit from the middle, so that no
small card of the adversaries may make.
His lead of predilection, however, is tlie
singleton, and his countenance fairly
beams with satisfaction when he thereb}^
succeeds in getting in a little trump ; but
the happiest moment of his whist life is,
when, at the close of the hand, he can
triumphantly spread out a handful of
trumps, which he has carefully bottled up,
4

Whist

for apparently no other purpose than to
bring about this dazzling finale^ quite un-
mindful of the fact that he often entombs
one or more good cards of his partner's,
which would have made separately, had
he extracted the adversaries' trumps early
in the hand.

Our plaj^ers found out in a very short
time that the establishing of a long suit,
with a view of brino^-ino- in its remnant
after exhausting the trumps of the oppo-
nents, was one of t'he prime factors of suc-
cess at whist, and the singleton lead was
relegated to the second rank. This was a
long stride in the right direction ; but, in
other respects, our play was such as would
have maddened the experts of to-day in
any attempts to read oar hands. In its
emotional aspect, that kind of game may
be said to have a certain advantage over
the scientific one, for, in the latter, as each
suit is gradually developed, you can read
the impending doom in the silent language
of the cards, and black care sits on your
brow to the end of tlie hand; while in

Whist

the haphazard contest, hope springs in
your breast, if not eternal, at least to
the close of the play, for the position of
the cards not being known with an}" de-
gree of certainty, you trust that some
of them may turn up in your partner's
hand and convert threatened defeat into
victor3\

We went on in this way for some time,
and perhaps in the course of years we
might have gradually worked out some of
the elementary rules of play, as now un-
derstood, when one day an Irish gentle-
man, who had been overlooking our game
and' probably thought it deserving of en-
couragement, sent me a little book, enti-
tled The Laws and Practice of Whist^ by
" Coelebs " (Carlyon). This proved a reve-
lation to us. From that moment to learn
scientific AYliist became our aim, so we or-
dered several copies of that little book; on
opening the packet, when received from a
IsTew York dealer, we found it to con-
tain not ^' Coelebs,'' which could not be
o"ot in that citv, but Cavendish,'' fifth

Whist

edition, substituted by the bookseller on his
own responsibility. Upon a comparison
of the two works, we soon discovered that
we were the gainers by the exchange, and
Ave went to work to stud}^ and play the
game in the illuminating rays of the new
light shed upon it by the brilliant mind of
the author. And well did it repay us, for
I vividly remember to this da}^ the great
pleasure experienced as the beauties of the
scientific game gradually unfolded them-
selves, and the satisfaction felt, as practice
demonstrated the soundness of rules of
pla}", based on certain correct principles so
clearly and concisely laid down by Henrj^
Jones, who is so well known wherever
Whist is played, under his pseudonym of
" Cavendish."

This book acquaintance with " Caven-
dish" was supplemented some j^ears later
by correspondence, which had its origin
through my sending to the London Field
a Whist case, based on actual play, in
which the position of the cards was as fol-
lows :

Whist

Kg., 10 C

Kn., 8, 6, 5. .H

9, Y, 3...

8, V

H
.S
D

9 C

Q, 10, 2. .H

10, 6 S

Ace, Kg., 4. .II

Kn., 8 S

9 D

Clubs trumps. Heart suit not opened.
Position of the other cards known, except
that A and B do not know which of Y
and Z holds two spades. A and B must
take every trick to save and win game.

A led the nine of diamonds. B must
trump to prevent Z from making his nine;
and, for the purpose of extracting it, Z,
needing but one trick to save and win
game, sees that his best chance of doing
this is to retain the minor tenace in spades
and a double guard to his queen of hearts ;
and knowing, besides, that his trump Avill
be drawn, throws it to the trick. This
play proclaims the holding of the small
spade, the position of w^hich was doubtful,

Whist

and B can now read Z's reasons for un-
der-trumping ; therefore he forces the dis-
card which Z is trvino; to avoid by leadino;
the king of trumps. Z discards the two
of hearts, A the eight of spades, and Y
the seven of spades. B now leads the
five of hearts, and A B take all six tricks.
You will note here that B does not follow
the rule to treat a long suit as a short one
when it cannot go round more than three
times. Had he pla3"ed the knave of hearts
in accordance with it, he would have lost
the game, for Z covers with queen and
the nine makes in Y's hand ; but B saw
that to win the game his partner must
hold ace of hearts, with the king or queen.
In either case he will capture the singly
guarded honor, which is assumed to be held
by Z — for if Y has it the game is lost;
therefore B properl}" led the small heart,
reserving the knave to take the third trick.

This endinc; I have oiven to mv readers
not only because it paved the way to
American Leads by inaugurating a corre-
spondence with Cavendish," but also for
9

Whist

the reason that it is interesting, contain-
ing, as it does, so many illustrative points:
1st, the trumping of partner's trick by B;
2d, the under-trumping by Z as the best
chance of winning ; 3d, the lead of the
thirteenth trump to force a discard ; 4th,
the lead of the small heart by B, contrarj^-
to rule; and 5th, playing to the score;
otherwise B might be deterred from lead-
ing the last trump lest Y make his eight
of diamonds, as the chances are that he
holds a card of entry in hearts. The case
was published in the Fields with approv-
ing remarks b\^ ''Cavendish," the card
editor of that paper. From this occur-
rence dates the beginning of a correspond-
ence between us which was kept up, with
but little intermission, np to the time of
his death, and which has proved a source
of much pleasure and profit to me.

After this I occasionally contributed to
the Field an illustrative hand. In one of
them, published in 1883, the position of
the cards, after the seventh trick, was as
follows :

Whist

4 II

xVce, 10, 8, 3. .D

Kn.,

9, Y...

4, 2

Kn.,

10, 7.

. . C

Kg., V,
Kn. . .

.II
.S

Z turned up the knave of diamonds.
The odd trick wins the game for either
side. A B have scored two tricks and
Y Z, five.

In the beginning of the plaj^ B called
for trumps, to which A responded by lead-
ing the six, Y playing the five, B the
queen, and Z the knave. Barring false
cards, B is marked w^ith the three and Z
has no more. B did not continue the
trumps, but returned his partners club
suit, taken w^ith the queen by Z, who then
w^on the next trick with the queen of
spades, which brings us to the above
position. Z follows with the king of
11

Whist

hearts, securing the sixth trick for his side,
and leads a small heart. A and B are now
in a desperate strait, for they must take
all the remaining tricks to save and win
game, against the king of trumps doubly
guarded in Y's hand. A trumps the small
heart with the four, although he holds the
two also; it looks as if it made no differ-
ence, but in doing so A makes a beautiful
play. He reasons in this way: ''My part-
ner must hold the ace of trumps or the
game is lost; he cannot have with it the
king and ten, or he would have drawn Y's
trumps ; he also does not hold ace, king,
nine, else he would have continued with
the king and waited for a lead of trumps
from me; therefore it is necessary that I
lead twice through Y as the onW chance
of winning; but B has one trump too many
for that scheme to succeed, and he must
get rid of the superfluous one on this trick
and still leave me in the lead, and this he
cannot do if I trump with the two." B
rises to the situation and under- trumps
with the three. A then leads the two of

Whist

trumpSj ^vhicb B takes with the eight,
plaj^s the ckib, taken by A, who leads
another club, and B captnres the nine and
king of trumps. It is to be observed that
Z would have won the game by playing
the knave of spades at the ninth trick,
when Y must not over-trumjD A, but should
discard his club ; but it is possible that Y
has no other heart, and Z tries to force
him in that suit as the best chance of
winning.

The foregoing hand was published, not
to illustrate the grand coup played by B,
for that has been done too often to be re-
peated, but to show the masterlj^ play of
A in trumping with the four. "Caven-
dish" was so well pleased with it, that he
embodied it in the next edition of his well-
known work on AYhist. Still, I would not
have produced it here were it not for the
fact that it gave to the late Eichard A.
Proctor, the eminent astronomer and whist
author, the opportunity to express the
high opinion in which he held the game
of whist as an intellectual pursuit. After

Whist

publishing the hand in Knowledge^ of
which he was the editor, when outlining
the features which he intended to make
prominent in the volume of that scientific
weekly about to begin with the new year,
he said: The papers on chess and whist
will be continued as before. We continue
to regard whist, as well as chess, as a sci-
entific game, though some correspondents,
who apparently know little of the game
and nothing of its real charms, objurgate
us for allowing what they call a mere
chance game to be dealt with in these col-
umns. We invite those who so view whist
to study the game which adorns our whist
column this week, and to consider whether
an average problem in mathematics would
more effectually test the powers of combi-
nation than the problem which was pre-
sented to all four pla3^ers at the close of
this remarkable game."

It was about this time that I wrote to
"Cavendish" a letter containing the germ
of one branch of American Leads. Before
giving their history, I deem it expedient
' 14

Whist

to trace first, as evolved through years of
experience and practice, certain well-recog-
nized principles of the game on which
those leads are based. In doing so, I will
not confine mvself to the examination
of those principles bearing more directly
on American Leads, but propose to note
also, in a cursory manner and chiefly
from a chronological point of view, the
other main developments of the game,
which precedecl and followed the intro-
duction of American Leads up to the year
1892.

The great majority of players have
rather confused ideas as to the time when
some of its most important features were
incorporated into the game. They are
generally under the impression that all
that is good in whist has been intro-
duced into it within comparatively modern
times. They will, therefore, be surprised
to learn that a good many of the rules as
laid down by Hojle, more than a century
and a half ago, are now followed by them
in their daily practice. I have more than

Whist

once heard advanced pla3^ers say to a be-
ginner: "With king, queen, knave, and
two or more small cards, the modern rule
is to lead the knave, and not the king, as
3^ou did"; little suspecting that Hoyle
gave the same advice in the following
words : If you have a sequence of king,
queen, knave, and two small ones, whether
you are strong in trumps or not, it is the
best play to begin ^vith the knave, because
by getting the ace out of an\^ hand you
make room for the whole suit." Particu-
lar attention has been drawn to this lead
for the reason that on the principle
w^hich underlies it is based one division
of American Leads, as will be seen herein-
after. This and other still practised rules
of play, given by Hoyle in his treatise
published in 1742, doubtless came into ex-
istence some years anterior to that date;
for it is safe to assume that, if not all, at
least the greater part of his w^ork is but a
compilation of the principles and rules of
play as he found them understood and
practised by Lord Folkestone and other
16

Whist

fine players of bis day. 'We are, therefore,
now following some orders of pla}^ formu-
lated at least one hundred and seventy
years ago.

The next advance was the introduction
of that important rule which directs that,
in returning your partner's lead, you
should play the higher card, having but
two remaining, and the lowest, having
three. It is not known when this rule
was first introduced into the game, but it
found its way into print about 1770, in
the following words : In returning your
partner's lead, play the best you have when
you hold but three originally" (Payne's
Maxims). Mathews gives the rule, some-
what amplified, in his Advice to the Young
Whist Playei\ published about 1805.

A few years prior to this last date, short
whist came into existence by the points of
the game being reduced from ten to five
and the calling of honors abolished. Mr.
Clay, in his delightful little work on Whist
— which should be in the hands of every
learner — gives an account of how this oc-

B IT

Whist

curred. He says that ''Lord Peterbor-
ough having one night lost a large sum
of money, the friends with whom he was
playing proposed to make the game five
points, instead of ten, in order to give
the loser a chance of recovering his loss.
The new game was found to be so livel}^,
and money changed hands with such ra-
pidit3\ that these gentlemen and their
friends, all leading members of the clubs
of the day, continued to play it."

The next important development was
the call for trumps. It was first intro-
duced some sixty 3'ears ago at " Gra-
ham's," a great card club in London, but
which Avas dissolved a little later. Lord
Henry Bentinck, a player of high repute,
is credited with its i^ivention. He is said
to have afterwards bitterly regretted his
ingenuity, which had deprived him of
much of the advantage which he derived
from his superior play by making the
game easier for the moderate player. Al-
though it is admitted that the call for
trumps was naturally evolved from cor-
18

Whist

rect lines of pla-y, yet it is considered by
the best authorities to be no improve-
ment; but it is now a permanent feature
of the game, and has to be dealt with as
such. One thing, however, is certain — it
has added much interest to the game for
the beginner.

We now come to an event in the his-
tory of whist, apparently insignificant, but
which was fraught with the future welfare
of the game, for it led to the introduction
of ''Cavendish^'' into the whist world, the
man to whom Whist owes more for its ad-
vancement than to an}^ other since the
days of Hoyle.

This event was the coming together of
the '*knot of young men" who pla3^ed
whist at Cambridge, and afterwards in
London, between 1850 and 1S60, referred
to b}^ Dr. William Pole in the introduc-
tion to his PliilosopJiij of Whist,

The facts concerning this " Little Whist
School,'' so far as I have been able to as-
certain them, are, that shortly after 1850
Mr. Daniel Jones, brother of Cavendish,"

Whist

and others, some of whom are mentioned
below, used to play whist at Cambridge
in much the same way as other young
men. It seems that, contrar}^ to the gen-
eral impression, Mr. Henry Jones was not
of the party, as he was then pursuing
his medical studies at St. Bartholomew's
Hospital, in London. After these gentle-
men had taken their degrees, they and
" Cavendish used to meet in London
about the year ISSi. The regular players
were Mr. Edward Wilson, Mr. W. Dundas
Gardiner, Mr. Daniel Jones, and Mr.
Henry Jones. Although others used to
join in the play at times, the four named
formed the backbone of the Little
School.*' "^Yhen these four met thev
used to play every hand through to the
end for the sake of science, and also for
the purpose of making certain calcula-
tions. They, moreover, wrote down in-
teresting hands, of which more anon. It
was in the nature of things that these
four whist enthusiasts, who w^ere young
men of considerable ability," as Dr.
20

Whist

Pole calls them, should argue, and that
they should not always agree. They had
the advantage over most beginners of be-
ing able to refer disputed points to the
late James Clay, then the acknowledged
authority on w^hist. The cases were w^rit-
ten down and submitted to Mr. Clay
through the medium of Mr. Henry Der-
viche Jones, F.R.C.S., father of Caven-
dish," who happened at that time to be
chairman of the Portland Club, the head-
quarters of English Whist, where he often
met Mr. Clay.

About 1860 the " Little School" ceased
to meet, owing to circumstances over
which the members had no control. A
number of manuscripts which had accu-
mulated were thrown into a drawer, and
there they would probably have remained
to this day but for the following accident:

In Macmillan'^s Magazine of December,
1861, appeared an article, " Games at
Cards for the Coming Winter." It was
signed "W. P." In the course of the ar-
ticle the following passage occurred : It

Whist

would be a great boon if some good au-
thority would publish a set of model
games of whist with explanatory remarks,
such as are found so useful in chess, for
example."

The future " Cavendish having read
this article, wrote to "^Y, P." that he
happened to have a number of whist hands
in manuscript, and should be happy to
lend them to him. He received a reply
from no less a person than Dr. William
Pole, F.K.S., etc., saying that he should
like to see the hands.

Before forwarding, " Cavendish" thought
he Avould just read the hands over. He
found the ''Little School" had taken so
much for granted that the MSS. would
probably be unintelligible to Dr. Pole.
Thus, if A led from his strong suit, no re-
mark was made about it; or, if B, when
returning his partner's lead, and holding
the three and the two, returned the three
in preference to the two, no reason was
given for it. So " Cavendish " began to
rewrite. In order to avoid repetition, he
22

Whist

erected some of the instructions into prin-
ciples, to which he referred as occasion
required. He also added a few element-
ary reasons for each line of play. Dr.
Pole examined the MS., and wrote to the
effect that its contents Avere a revelation
to him, and that Jones ought to publish;
so as Cavendish," the name of his then
club, he ventured into print, in 1862, with
a modest 250 copies. The rest every whist
player knows; his success was great ; and
I have his authority to say that by 1891 he
had disposed of 59,000 copies of his Laws
and Principles of Whist. Since that date
he must have sold several thousands more.
So much for an accident. But to return
to the " Little School."

It was first so christened by a writer in
the Quarterly Review of January, 1871.
Then a storm arose. The late Abraham
Hayward wrote to the London Horning
Post to say that none of the most cele-
brated players of the day were aware of
the existence of this school. That was
not surprising, considering that the play-
23

Whist

ers named had no idea the}^ formed a
school until after the publication of the
Quarterly^ when they ''awoke and found
themselves famous." Hayward added, in
Xh^Post: ''Did these young men originate
or elaborate or compass anything, or did
they merely arrange what was well known
and procurable before?" To this "Caven-
dish" replied : " What I claim for the Lit-
tle School is tlaat in our book we gave for
the first time the reasoning on which the
principles of whist-play are based, logical-
ly and completely." It does not appear
that the "Little School" oriHnated anv
alterations worthy of record. These came
later, as we shall see further on.

In consequence, doubtless, of the repu-
tation achieved by him through his book,
"Cavendish" was given charge of the
card department of the London Field in
December, 1862. This was a most fortu-
nate occurrence, as it contributed not a
little to the subsequent unity and sta-
bility of the game, by making the Field
the medium through which all improve-
24

Whist

ments or alterations are suggested, dis-
cussedj adopted, or rejected, as the case
may be.

But to return to the progress of Whist.

In 1864 Dr. "WilHam Pole published an
essay on the " Theory of the Modern
Scientific Game of Whist," as a second
part to the sixteenth edition of the well-
known work, Short Whist^ hj Major A.^
in which he enunciated the fundamental
theory of the modern scientific game to
be — That the hands of the two partners
shall not be played singly and indepen-
dently, but shall be combined and treated
as one. And that to carry out most effec-
tually this principle of combination each
partner shall adopt the long -suit system
as the general basis of his play."

That this theory is sound is proved by
the fact that it regulates the play of the
great majority of players to this day.

The earliest of the cases elaborated,
after the appearance of Cavendish on
Whist, was the protective discard from
strength. This was first noticed in the

Whist

Field of November 30, 186 7, and ex-
plained in the eighth edition, 1868. The
kernel of this is contained in the advice
given by Mathews : If weak in trumps,
keep guard on your adversary's suits; if
strong, thro\y away from them.''

The next advance was the penultimate
lead from suits of more than five cards
{Fields October 12 and 26 and Novem-
ber 2, 1872), followed b}^ the echo of the
call (same paper, July 25, 1871). These
are duly noted in the tenth edition of
Cavendish onWhist^ dated June, 1871.

On September 11 and October 16, 1875,
were published in the Field two articles
b}^ Cavendish " on leads. They are, to
my mind, so important as forerunners of
the present system of American Leads,
showing what was then ''in the air," as it
has since been called, that I quote from
them at length.

''Cavendish" says: '*' From ace, queen,
knave, and two or more small ones, the
proper lead is ace, then knave, instead of
the usual ace, then queen ; because, w4th

Whist

five of the suit, 3^ou want partner, if he
held king and two small ones originally,
to put his king on second round." He
also says : " The usual lead from ace,
queen, knave, ten, is ace, then queen.
This, however, is wrong, as it is not the
game for partner to put king on queen
led after ace, he having king and two
small ones origuially. He thereby blocks
the suit on the third round. The proper
lead from ace, queen, knave, ten, with or
without small ones, is ace, then ten. . . .
The partner of the plaj^er who leads ace,
then ten, should put the king on the ten —
in plain suits — if he had three originall}^,
but not if he had four. Hence . . . the
third player's hand can be counted when
he has the king."

" Cavendish " then proceeded to show
that, by a parity of reasoning, the proper
lead from the queen, knave, ten combina-
tion is queen, then knave, ATith four in
suit; and queen, then ten, with more than
four.

These leads were evidently so correct in
27

Whist

principle that they found immediate fa-
vor. The}^ are introduced in the eleventh
edition of Cavendish on Whist, 1ST6. The
lead from ace, queen, knave, ten combi-
nation has, however, been since altered
in one respect : with one or more small
cards, the ten is ignored and the knave is
led after the ace, the same as from ace,
queen, knave, tw^o or more small ones.

From the foregoing it would appear
that a great whist advance was made be-
tween the years 1S64 and 1876.

In 1ST9, Colonel, now General, A. W.
Drayson, in his Art of Practical Whist —
one of the most interesting books on the
game — recommended the lead of the ante-
penultimate from a suit of six cards. He
furthermore suo'o^ested, with ace and five
others, to lead the ace, then the smallest
but one — that is, the original Ji/th-hest.
This, to some extent, foreshadowed Amer-
ican Leads, although the object of the
Drayson rules was solel}^ to show number.
In the Field of April 8, 1882, the same
author suggested that when the trumps
28

Whist

were all out, the play of an unnecessarily
hio^h card would be a direction to chancre
the suit. He argues that the call for
trumps is, in reality, a command to
''change the suit to trumps"; conse-
quently when, the trumps being all out,
you play an unnecessarily high card, you
can only imply that you want the suit
changed to another plain suit. General
Drayson has also proposed the reverse dis-
card as a rule of play useful on occasions.
It is the throwing, on the second discard,
of a card of the same suit lower than the
one first discarded, under circumstances
when such play cannot be a call for
trumps or an echo. For instance, your
cards are such that you are forced to dis-
card from your strong long suit. On two
trump leads from your partner you first
discard the penultimate, then the lowest
of your suit, and you have, as it were, by
reversing the order of the cards thrown
away, negatived the meaning of the first
discard, which proclaimed weakness in the
suit. These last two rules of play appear

Whist

to be sound, and are used by many ad-
vanced players.

In three articles, the first of which ap-
peared in the Field of April 28, 1883,
Dr. William Pole applied the laws of
probabilities to the ever-vexed question of
the play of the king and a small card,
second hand, with the result of confirming
the practice of playing the small card, as
a general rule.

Mogul," a whist celebrity, had, as far
back as 1867, demonstrated the same fact
by what " Pembridge," the clever author
of Wliist or Bitml)lej)uj}j)y^ termed " a
masterly analysis, itself a miracle of in-
dustry," and who himself arrived at the
same conclusion after keeping a record
of over four thousand two hundred cases
from actual play.

We have now reached the epoch of
American Leads.

Although American Leads are exten-
sively played in this country, many play-
ers who follow them are ignorant of the
principles on which they are based, prob-
30

Whist

ably because these leads were suggested,
explained, discussed, and abused in an
English paper — the London Field — which
has but a limited circulation in America.
Therefore, before giving the historj^ of the
development of those leads, it appears ad-
visable to go over well-trodden ground,
for the benefit of the many who play
them without knowing the principles on
which they are founded.

The maxims or rules laid down by
American Leads are as follows :

1. AVhen you open a strong suit with a
low cavd^ lead the foitrtJt-hest.

2. When you open a strong suit with a
high card^ and next lead a loio card^ lead
t\\(d foui'th-iest,, counting f rom and includ-
ing the card first led,

3. When you remain with two high
indifferent cards^ lead the higher, if you
opened a suit of four ; the lower^ if you
opened a suit of more than four.

Maxims or Rules 1 and 2 are component
parts of that principle governing the orig-
inal lead which demands that it should be

Whist

from the longest suit, inasmuch as ttiey
provide a system which points out the
card to be uniformly led from the long
suit, under the contingencies mentioned
in those rules. The selection of the par-
ticular card to be led is not purely arbi-
trary, but is founded on reason, as I will
proceed to show.

A suit of four cards is considered to be
numerically strong, because it contains a
number of cards over the average due to
each player. It is the long suit of mini-
mum strength, and therefore is the one
held the most frequently. It is, so to
speak, the type of the long suit.

One of the results of opening a four-
card suit from the bottom is, that the
leader remains with three cards higher
than the one led. The information con-
tained in this simple fact is very impor-
tant, as it often enables the partner of
the leader to place certain cards in his
hands.

Suppose the cards to lie as follows :
32

Whist

Q., 10, 7

Ace, Kg., 4

5, 3,2

Kn.,9, 8, 6

A leads the six ; and the king, seven, and
two fall ; when A again obtains the lead
he plays the eight; Y, the ace; B now
knows that A must hold the knave and
nine, the only two unplayed cards which
are higher than the six. He can, therefore,
safely throw his queen on the ace, and
thus, perhaps, enable A to gain a trick by-
unblocking the suit.

Now give to A another small card, say
the two, and suppose he opens the suit
with it ; when it becomes B's turn to play
on the second round, he will know nothing
certain about the position of the knave
and nine, and therefore cannot unblock,
as he might lose a trick by attempting to
do so.

The opening of a four -card suit from
the bottom affording incidentally, as we

Whist

have seen, valuable information as to the
number, and often as to the rank, of cer-
tain cards remaining in leader's hand, the
question arises. Cannot this information be
imparted in the opening of long suits con-
taining more than four cards ?

The solution of the question is simple :
bring that class of cases under one sys-
tem^ and treat every long suit opened vnth
a loio card as if it contained four cards
only therefore lead your fourth-hest, and
the rest follows.

For instance :

The six is the proper card to lead in
each case, leaving, invariably, three cards
higher than the one led in the leaders
hand.

As will be perceived hj an examina-
tion of the above example, Cavendish's"
penultimate and Dravson's antepenulti-
mate leads, introduced to show number, are

From Kg., Kn., 8 6

Kg.,Kn.,8 6
Kg.,Kn.,8 6
Kg., Kn., 8 6

5, 3

5, 3, 2, etc.

Whist

fractions of the system — outlying islands
discovered before the mainland.

Another incidental advantage of the sys-
tem is that frequently some of the small
cards which have not fallen to the first
and second rounds are marked in leader's
hand. Examine the folio win 2: dia^am
sent by me to ^'Cavendish" at the time
we were discussino^ the matter,

6, 5,2

Q., Kn., 8, 7, 4, 3

and you will perceive that if A leads
the seven (fourth -best), B can place, on
the first round, queen, knave, eight in his
partner's hand, and on the second round —
barring a false card by Z — he can place
the remaining small cards : the six with
Z, and the four with A — for if the latter
had the six, he would have played it on

Whist

the second round, in order to declare the
holding of the four and three.

If A leads the three originalh^his partner
will know next to nothing about his suit.

The same system applies to suits of more
than four cards which are opened with a
high card, followed with a low one (Maxim
or Eule 2) ; that is, we also treat them as
containing four cards only, and lead the
original fourth - lest after quitting the
head of the suit. By adhering to system
we preserve the advantage incidental to
the play of a four-card suit similarh^
opened — of giving the information that
the leader holds exactly two cards higher
than the one led by him on the second
round.

EXAMPLE,
lit 2d

Lead.

Lead

Ace

Kb.,

Ace

Kii.,

Ace

Kn.,

3,2

The king being no longer led from more
than four cards, we may take suits headed
by the ace as the type of the long suit
opened from the top, because it is the one

Whist

most frequently held. In'ow, in dropping
from the ace to the original fourth-best,
there alu^ays remain in the leader's hand
two cards intermediate in value between
the ones led to the first and second rounds ;
therefore, in order to obtain analogous re-
sults in the opening of the king, queen,
more than four suits, the queen should be
followed with the original fourth -best,
counting from and including the queen.

Not 1st
Counted. Lead.

Lead.

' Qn.

8, 6

Qn.

8, 6

Qu.

8, 6

3, 2

Hence Maxim or Eule 2 was formulat-
ed so as to be general in its application.

Here is an example from actual play of
the workino: of Maxim or Eule 2 :

Q., 8, 3

Kg., Kn.

Ace, 10, 9, 4, 2
37

Whist

A, after leading the ace, played the
seven ; when it became B's turn to play to
the second round, he knew that A held
the ten and nine, so he threw the queen
to the king, thus unblocking A's suit,
which enabled him to make four more
tricks in it — a gain of three to the part-
nership, for A had no card of re-entry
after the trumps were exhausted, and B
let him in with the eight of the suit, which
he woukl otherwise have blocked had he
retained the queen.

The second branch of American Leads,
which comes under Maxim or Rule 3, re-
lates to the lead of high indifferent cards,
marked in the player's hand, and is based
on the principle that w^ith such cards, in
opening suits of more than average nu-
merical strength, the aim should be to get
the master-card out of partner's hand, so
as to free the suit.

This principle is at least as old as Hoyle,
and he put it in practice, as we have seen
above, by directing that, with king, queen,
knave, and two small ones, you should be-
38

Whist

gin with the knave, and giving the reasons
for so doing. This remained an isolated
case until " Cavendish," carrying the prin-
ciple one step further, introduced, in 1S75,
the modification of the three leads quoted
above — that is, following the ace with
the knave instead of queen, from ace,
queen, knave, more than one small ; fol-
lowing the ace with the ten instead of
queen from ace, queen, knave, ten, with or
without small ones (since changed as noted
above), and following queen with the ten,
instead of knave, from queen, knave, ten,
with more than one small one; alwavs
leading, on the second round, as you will
observe, the lower of the high indifferent
cards, to induce partner to clear the suit
by playing the master-card on the lower
one, which he would not do on the higher
one, if led.

But, when Cavendish" applied the
principle in question to the leads just
above noted, the limit of the cases af-
fected by that principle had by no means
been reached, for the system of play nec-
39

Whist

essary to put the principle in action is
susceptible of being extended to a number
of cases analogous in other respects, but
where the fundamental reason, which gave
being to the principle, no longer exists —
in other words, when the master-card of
the suit is forced on the first round or is
in the hand of the leader.

When you invite your partner to get
rid of the command of your suit, you
necessarily impart to him, at the same
time, the knowledge that your suit is one
of more than average numerical strength,
otherwise there could be no object to
have it unblocked. The message, then,
which you convey to him b}^ the card led
on the second round, is a twofold one.
You ask him to free youv suit at the op-
portune moment, and you inform him
that you possess a long suit containing a
certain determinate number of cards.

Consequently, when the master-card of
the suit is forced on the first round, or
you hold it yourself, the question of clear-
ing the suit is solved before you have
40

Whist

occasion to make your second lead ; still
there remains the important information
to be disclosed to your partner concern-
ing the numerical strength of your suit ;
therefore, with a suit of more than four
cards, you lead, on the second round, the
same card which you would have played
to induce him to unblock your suit — that
is, the lower of two indifferent high cards ;
with a shorter suit, you lead the higher of
those cards.

To illustrate, take a suit headed by the
king, knave, and ten: you begin with the
ten, the proper card to lead from that
combination ; the queen, or both the
queen and ace fall to the first round and
you are left with two high indifferent
cards — the king and knave ; still you fol-
low the rule laid down, and you lead the
knave after the ten, if your suit comprised
five or more cards; and you lead the
king after the ten, if it contained less
than five; thus imparting valuable infor-
mation to your partner.

A stronger case in point is when you
41

Whist

hold ace, king, queen, with five or more in
suit. As the master-card is in your hand,
there can be no question of unblocking;
still, you follow the line of play intended
primarily as a direction to your partner to
clear the suit, but which you now use for
the sole purpose of conve3^ing certain
valuable information to him reo:ardincr
the numerical strength of your suit ;
therefore, with five in suit, you lead ace
after queen, and, with more than five, you
lead king after queen.

At the time of the introduction of
American Leads, this system of play was
applied to the lead on the tliird round of
a suit, owing to the fact that at that pe-
riod some suits headed by four high cards
were treated differently than they are
now. For example, with ace, queen,
knave, ten combination, the ten was led
after the ace, with anv number in suit ;
then, third round, the queen was led with
four in suit, and the knave was led with
more than four. But, since then, the
leads which required a third round to dis-
43

Whist

close the number of cards in suit have been
so modified and simplified that this infor-
mation is now imparted, in all cases, by
the card led on the second round, as will
be seen hereinafter.

The system of American Leads having
thus been briefly explained, I will now
proceed to give their history.

In July, 1883, I wrote to " Cavendish "
the letter which I have referred to as con-
taining the germ of one branch of American
Leads. I said, in part, ''With a suit head-
ed by king, knave, ten, the lead of the ten
forcing out the queen, I always follow
with king when I had originally four of
the suit, and with knave when I had origi-
nally five or more. I have no book author-
ity for this, but I find it gives my partner
valuable information." My letter went
on to explain the reasons for so leading,
which were substantially the same as
those which have been given above for
the play of iigh indifferent cards. This
letter was published in the Fields with a
note by ''Cavendish," from which I quote
43

Whist

the following extracts: "We have sub-
mitted our correspondent's king, knave,
ten, etc., ' notion ' to several good players,
and they are all of opinion that his sys-
tem of leading is correct, and justifiable
on general principles. We have stated
over and over again in the J^ield that
conventional rules of play are founded on
extensions of principle, notwithstanding
that the reason w^hich led to the adoption
of the original principle does not exist in
the conventional cases. ... As soon as
the convention with regard to return
leads was fully established — viz., to return
the higher of two cards for the sole pur-
pose of affording information, though tliis
higher card were perchance only the three
— the present extensions of a similar rule
to leads were certain to follow after a
time. In the case of this particular lead
from king, knave, ten, no rule, so far as
we know, has ever been previously laid
down, and our valued correspondent is en-
titled to the credit of having applied the
extension to an omitted case."

Whist

Although the germ of the system was
contained in the above case, it was not
until the beginning of the next year that
it dawned upon me that this line of play
was applicable to many other cases, and
in March, 1884, 1 sent to the Field a short
article in which I suggested the adoption
of the now generally accepted rule for
the play of high indifferent cards, arguing
that it was based on the extension of a
recognized general principle, and giving a
number of examples.

Mark how slowly the application of a
whist principle seems to work itself into
the human understanding. Hoyle gives
an isolated case — king, queen, knave lead
— involving a principle. One hundred
and thirty-odd years elapse before ''Cav-
endish" applies it to other leads ; eight
more years go by before the principle is
extended to another isolated case — king,
knave, ten example ; and it takes another
twelve months' mental incubation to bring
forth the generalization of the principle.
What appears to be specially worthy of

Whist

note is the fact that the king, knave, ten
example was before the best whist-play-
ers of the world for several months, and
not one of them seems to have perceived
that it was but the application to one
case of the extension of a well-established
principle, which was susceptible of being
generalized so as to embrace numerous
cognate cases.

What is also a matter of surprise is the
fact that whist writers and players had
not recooiiized the obvious bearino- of the
lead of the lowest of a four -card suit on
the play of second hand; for instance,
with king, knave, nine, one or more small,
second player should cover with the nine
the eight led by a good player on the
original lead of the hand ; otherwise the
eight will hold the trick, for if the leader
has opened from a four -card suit, his re-
maining cards must be the ace, queen, and
ten. As well as I can remember, Clay is
the only writer who came near the mark
when he read the nine, knave, king (or ace)
in the hand of a player who led the six,
46

Whist

and advised third player to finesse the
ten, holding also the seven, eight, and
qneen; but he does not seem to have
noticed the importance of the informa-
tion as affecting the play of second
hand.

During the interval between the publi-
cation of the two articles on the lead of
high indifferent cards I furnished to the
Field a letter on the penultimate lead on
the second round of the suit," in which
the penultimate w^as recommended as the
proper lead after quitting the head of the
suit, in order to show number. In com-
menting on this suggested method of play,
Cavendish," in a Field article, after giv-
ing one favorable position and two unfa-
vorable ones, concluded by saying : If
N". B. T. w411 class the cases after analysis
in which a trick cannot be given away by
his method, and can thence formulate a
plain rule of play, I think his proposed
method might be advantageously employ-
ed. Perhaps he will kindly try his hand
at this, and send result to the Field, I

Whist

think, however, he will find it more trou-
blesome than he expects."

This elicited the suggested analysis pub-
lished in the Field April 5, 1884, the re-
sult of which was the formulating of a
rule of play which would leave a never-
varying interval of two cards between the
card first led and the one led to the sec-
ond round ; afterwards put in a more con-
cise way by directing the follow of the

original fourth-best."

The lead of the fourth-best when open-
ing a suit with a low card was not ad-
vocated by me in print, but was settled
between " Cavendish " and me by corre-
spondence. What is not generally known
— for Mr. Henry Jones has modestly kept
it to himself — -is that he independently
suggested this rule of play in a letter
w^hich crossed one from me of the same
import.

In his letter Cavendish " said : " I call
four the normal number in strong suits.
It is the type; more than four is very
strong. Treat every suit (except ace suits
48

Whist

and king, queen, knave suits with five) as
though you held only four, without the
supernumerary small cards. The rest fol-
lows." I wrote: Treat every long suit
as if it were originally the ordinary long
suit of four cards ; consequently, lead the
fourth from the top, or drop down to the
fourth from the top, on quitting the head
of the suit."

It seems from the above that our ideas
on the subject ran parallel, and whatever
credit may attach to the introduction of
the fourth -best when a low card is led,
"Cavendish" is certainly entitled to his
share of it.

While on the subject of fourth -bests, I
beg my reader's permission for a short di-
gression. As it has been claimed for Gen-
eral Drayson that he first introduced the
fourth -best lead, I take this opportunity
to note the difference between his ante-
penultimate and the fourth-best. He ex-
tended the principle of the penultimate
lead of Cavendish" to suits of six cards:
both schemes were admittedly intended
D 49

Whist

solely to show number. The fourth-best
lead, on the other hand, applied to every
long suit, and thus erected into a system
based on a principle, is intended primarily
to show the possession by the leader of
three cards higher than the one origi-
nally led, the holding of smaller cards
and number in suit being disclosed inci-
dentally. Although this difference has
been pointed out by other ^vriters, I
thought it w^ell to refer to it, lest my
silence be construed into an admission
that the claim made for General Dray son
is w^ell founded.

For some time after the publication of
the articles in the Fields nothing more
appeared in print on the subject. In the
meantime it w^as evident, from the letters
of Mr. Hemy Jones to me, that American
Leads," as he called them, were growing
in his estimation. He wanted me to pub-
lish them in pamphlet form, but, not being
inclined to do so, I left it to him to cham-
pion the leads, and on the 9th of August,
188 J:, there appeared in the Field the first
50

Whist

article on American Leads by "Caven-
dish," in the introduction to which he
said : Having satisfied ourselves that
these leads are sound and in harmony
with general principles of play, and that
they are advantageous to those who prac-
tise them, there is evidently but one
course open to us, viz., to give them our
unqualified support." In this, and in two
other articles which followed during the
same month, he explained the whole sys-
tem of American Leads in a clear and
forcible manner, which must have carried
conviction to any unbiassed mind.

That an unknown individual sio^nino;
himself JS". B. T. was suo^o^estino- some in-
novations to the game seemed to be a
matter of perfect indifference to the con-
servatives, who paid not the slightest at-
tention to his articles ; but when Caven-
dish" declared that he intended to give
his "unqualified support" to American
Leads, the mediaeval division of players
rose up in arms against the proposed im-
provements.

Whist

^^Mogul" put on his war-paint and
made some savage attacks in the Field
on American Leads and their authors, de-
nouncing the leads as abominable modern
inventions." Pembriclge " rushed into
print with Tlie Decline and Fall of Whist^
m which he gave vent to his pent-up
feelings ''of abliorrence of the recent
proceedings of the new academy"; and
several of the lesser whist lights also en-
tered the lists against American Leads.

The denunciations of these parties did
not in the least alter ''Cavendish's" opin-
ion, for he continued to champion Ameri-
can Leads in every possible manner. In
February, 1885, he delivered a lecture on
the subject to a large gathering of promi-
nent whist-players, in the drawing-room
of the United Whist Club, in London, a
summary of which appeared in the Xew
York Spirit of the Tiines^ March 14, 1885.
In the following month he published, in
the same paper, an article entitled "Mr.
Barlow on American Leads at Whist,"
containing an instructive lesson under the

Whist

guise of a clever travesty of the old-
fashioned style of Sandford and Merton^
and of the pompousness of Mr. Barlow,
who did not forget to back up Hany and
snub Tommy, as was his habit. In De-
cember of the same j^ear he published an
article on American Leads in MacmillarCs
Magazine^ and finally, after the pros and
cons had been pretty thoroughly thresh-
ed out in the Fields he incorporated the
whole system of American Leads in the
sixteenth edition of his Laios and Princi-
jples of Whist^ 1886, the recognized text-
book of the whist -player. From that
moment the future of those leads as a
permanent feature of the game was as-
sured.

The American Leads discussion in the
Field was summed up by Merry An-
drew," one of the participants, in a pam-
phlet entitled " The American Lead Con-
troversy." The title-page bore the motto :
" Vous savez les American Leads^ jeune
hommef Quelle tkist(^) meillesse vous
vous prej)arez /" — engrafting a pleasantry

Whist

on a parody of Tallej^rand's well-known
prediction of a cheerless old age to the
youth who was ignorant of the game.

During this period Whist was advanc-
ing with rapid strides in other directions.
Dr. Pole, applying his high mathematical
and logical attainments to the solution of
the question of second hand covering an
honor with an honor, holding fewer than
four in suit, published the results of his
calculations in the Fields April 26, 1884,
by which he demonstrated that the cover-
ing was disadvantageous. Since that pe-
riod this time -honored practice has been
abandoned.

In the Field of October 11, 1884, ap-
peared the first of nine articles on The
Play of Third Hand," a masterly and ex-
haustive piece of whist analysis, by which
Cavendish" reduced the unblocking play
to a system, called by him at the time The
Plain -Suit Eclio," a designation which
he soon afterwards changed to " The Un-
blocking Game." This consists in retain-
ing the lowest card of your partner's

Whist

long suit, when you hold four exactly, by
which play you often clear his suit and
gain one or more tricks for the partner-
ship. The typical case, and the one which
emphasizes the method, owing to the com-
manding: streno;th of the cards, is the kino:,
queen, knave and one small combination,
when j^ou throw the knave to the ace led
by your partner and afterwards " play
up," even when your adversaries are trump-
ing the suit after the first round, reserving
the small card to the end.

An incident of this line of play is the
showing of the number of cards you hold
in your partner's suit. If a small card,
sav the two, which otherwise should have
been played, does not appear on the sec-
ond round, it is marked in your hand, bar
the suppression of a call for trumps, and
the holding by you of four cards in the
suit is indicated. On the other hand, if,
to the first round, you play the two, or its
equivalent from your partner's point of
view, he knows you have fewer than four.
This opportunity to show number is al-

Whist

AvaA's present, because, in this, as in other
sj^stems, the line of play indicated is per-
severed in, although the primary object of
the method cannot be attained in some
particular cases — for instance, with the
five, four, three, and two of your partner s
suit you cannot block it ; and with four
cards in sequence you cannot unblock it ;
still, you must pla}^ in a uniform manner
and retain your lowest card to the last.

It happens, in this case, that the inci-
dent is a more important factor towards
handling the suit with success than the
pla}" of which it is an adjunct, because the
disclosing of number in his suit is fre-
quently useful to your partner, while the
unblocking results but seldom in any gain,
owino^ to the circumstance that a card of
re-entr}^ makes it useless, or weakness in
trumps renders it ineffectual.

Again, we find that our old friend
Hoyle has laid the foundation for this
other system. He writes : We will now
suppose your partner is to lead, and in the
course of play it appears to you that your

Whist

partner has one great suit ; suppose ace,
king, and four small ones, and that you
have queen, ten, nine, and a very small
one of that suit ; when your partner plays
the ace, you are to play the nine ; when
he plays the king, you are to play the
ten ; by which means, you see, in the third
round you make your queen, and, having
a small one remaining, j^ou do not ob-
struct your partner's great suit."

It appears, too, from the foregoing ex-
ample, that Hoyle led the ace, with king
and four small ones — a lead generally sup-
posed to be a modern one.

The Play of Third Hand, together with
American Leads and the new play of not
covering an honor (except, of course, with
the ace), as recommended by Dr. Pole,
was embodied by ''Cavendish" in his
well - known work. Whist Developnen ts^
published in 1SS5.

In 18S5 the sub-echo, or showing three
trumps, was suggested by me to our
w^hist circle. It was pronounced to be
sound in theory, being an instance of pro-
57

Whist

gressiveness of whist language, and after
some months' trial was adopted as a use-
ful device. It is merely echoing after
showing that 3^ou have not four trumps,
by not echoing when j^ou had the oppor-
tunity to do so, or by your return cards in
the trump suit. There are several waj^s
of sub-echoing ; the simplest case is this :
your partner leads a trump on which you
play the two — you cannot therefore have
four. A plain suit is opened, you echo,
and you thus tell him you held three
trumps originally.

" Cavendish " did not for several years
give his sanction to the sub -echo, which
was explained in a Field article, Novem-
ber 21, 1SS5; but when he did he sug-
gested a modification, which is doubtless
an improvement ; it is to begin the sub-
echo at once; for instance, my method
was as follows: holding, say, the seven,
five, and three in a plain suit, I played the
three, then the seven, followed by the five
on the third round, which completed the
sub -echo. Cavendish" said: ''In my
58

Whist

opinion, you should play the fiv^e to the
first round, the seven to the second round,
and the three to the third round. If you
are going to sub-echo, you may as well be-
gin at once. Your partner, missing a very
small card on the first and second rounds,
may divine a sub -echo before it is com-
pleted ; or, when you play the five, you
may not have been able to show that you
did not hold four trumps. Before 3^ou
have occasion to play the suit again, this
information may have been afforded. You
can then complete the sub -echo on the
second round, by next playing the three.-'

After discussion in the Field, during
the year 1887, the lead of the knave, with
ten, nine, four or more in suit was given
up for the fourth-best.

As far back as Februarv, 1884, Caven-
dish" wrote to me as follows: '^From
king, queen, five in suit, might not queen
be led ? If queen wins, continue with
small. This cannot be queen, knave, ten
lead, or knave would be next lead; so it
must be something else, viz., king, queen,
59

Whist

more than four in suit. . . . This may also
necessitate reconsideration of leads from
ace, king, five in suit. If ace is first led,
then king, leader has at least three small
ones ; this lead has often been proposed,
but at present the best players I know
think the immediate demonstration of ace,
king, more important than declaration of
number." Althouo^h his conviction OTew
stronger every day that these leads were
right — in fact, necessary — as adjuncts to
the unblocking play, yet so great is his
respect for British conservatism that four
years elapsed before ''Cavendish" formal-
ly recommended them in print, which he
did (''in fear and quake," as he afterwards
acknowledged) in three Field articles, the
first appearing Ma}^ 12, 1888. To his
great surprise, however, his fears that
these innovations would meet with vio-
lent opposition proved to be groundless.
In ihQ^ Field of December 28, 1889, he
says : " I find that these leads are adopted
all over the kingdom, not only by the mi-
nority, but by players to whom American

Whist

Leads are a sealed book, and who never
dream of unblocking."

About the same time, I sent a letter to
the Fields published in June, 1SS8, recom-
mending and advocating, in a colloquial
form, the lead of queen, with ace, king,
and two or more small ones, and the lead
of the knave, Avith ace, king, queen, and
one or more small ones, which are leads
replete with information, because the ex-
ceptional number of high indifferent cards
enables one to show greater length in suit
than can be accomplished with weaker
combinations of the cards.

An important change in Maxim 2 of
American Leads was rendered necessary
by the introduction of the lead of the
queen, with king and three or more small
ones.

At the time that maxim w^as formu-
lated the king was always led, with queen
and any number of small cards of the suit,
and the rule was to follow the king with
original fourth-best, just as in the case of
the ace. I saw that this would not work

Whist

■with the new lead, and wrote to "Cav-
endish"— pubhshed in Fidd. August 25,
ISS^ — in part, as follows :

I am entirely in accord with you in
evervthiiiD^ vou have said in rea^ard to
those leads umd the ones associated with
them) except on one point, viz.. as to fol-
lowing Cjueen with original fourth-best.

''See wliat a mess B may make of it,
by not knowing to a certainty the nature
of A's lead.

Ace, 5, 4

Kg,Q, 10, 9, 7,3

'•A leads Cjueen. then nine (original
fourth-best): as far as B knows, the lead
may be from queen, knave, ten, nine.
Now if B passes the nine, to capture the
king, supposed to be in Y's hand, he loses
the second trick and blocks A's suit. If
Y holds knave with his other two cards,
62

Whist

the result is not quite so disastrous ; still,
bad enough, for A's suit is blocked.

" You will either have to make an ex-
ception with king, queen, ten, nine, or
to abandon altoo:ether the lead of orio^i-
nal fourth -best, when queen is led from
king, queen, more than four in suit. Bather
than have any exceptions, I am in favor
of the latter course — that is, with king,
queen, three or more, lead queen, then
fourth-best 7'emaining, This would leave
in leader's hand two cards, instead of one,
higher than the card led ; just as is the
case in tlie ace lead followed by original
fourth-best."

The second maxim was then recast to
cover the case.

The now well-known eleven rule was
first given to the public in the early part
of 1890. It is a rule of thumb, resulting
from the solution of a very simple arith-
metical problem, by which the number of
cards superior to the fourth-best led that
are out against the leader may be quickly
ascertained. This is done by deducting
63

Whist

the number of pips on the fourth-best card
from eleven, the remainder giving the
number of those higher cards. This has
been derisivel}^ styled " playing whist by
arithmetic." This rule was first worked
out, as far back as 1881, by Mr. E. T.
Foster, of K'ew York, the clever whist
author and teacher, who, however, did
not divulge it, except in strict confidence
to his pupils, and to a few other persons,
^'Cavendish" among them. It was after-
wards independent!}^ formulated by Mr. E.
F. M. Benecke, M.A., of Balliol College,
Oxford, and made public in the Field^ of
January 4, 1890, by his friend Mr. Henry
A. Cohen, who took occasion in his article
to make some interestins: observations on
the play of second hand as affected by the
fourth-best leads.

In three papers published in the Fields
in March, April, and June, 1890, Mr. AY.
H. "Whitfeld, M.A., the eminent mathe-
matician— who as a whist analyst and a
double - dummy composer is without a su-
perior— investigated the old problem of
64

Whist

the play, second hand, with king and an-
other in plain suits, taking into considera-
tion the magnitude of the card led — a fac-
tor neglected by Dr. Pole in his analysis
above referred to — obtaining practically
the same result as the latter, that the small
card is the more advantageous play, and
which was further confirmed by the calcu-
lations made by Mr. A. E. Smith, B.A.,
made on entirely different lines, published
in the Field about the same time.

These results, taken in conjunction with
those already obtained by Dr. Pole, '^Mo-
gul," and "Pembridge," ought to settle
definitely this troublesome question, were
it not that a new and disturbing element
has since come into pla}^, which must
modify the conclusions arrived at by those
experts. I mean the new lead of the
fourth-best card, from ace with four others,
not the king or both queen and knave,
which may equalize the chances for the
play of either card, or, possibly, throw the
balance of advantage on the side of the
king.

E 65

Whist

In the early part of 1891 the cuhni-
nating-point in the development of whist
leads seems to have been reached, as ap-
pears from the contents of an important
and comprehensive article which appeared
in the Field of January 24:th of that year,
entitled " On the Leads of High Cards."
The writer, who signed himself "A Be-
liever in Whist Developments," who had
Avith marked abihty and fairness taken a
prominent part in the discussion of Ameri-
can Leads, and who, as I have reason to
know, was in close touch with "Caven-
dish," after referring to a paper by him —
Fields November, 1890 — in which he had
proposed that with king, queen, knave,
ten, and no small one, king should be led,
followed with the ten, went on to say:
But I should like now to draw attention
to the consequence of this lead. There are
two analogous leads, viz., that from ace,
queen, knave, ten, without any small card,
and that from queen, knave, ten, nine,
without any small card. Applying the
same principle to these combinations, it

Whist

seems to me that ace, then ten, should
show queen, knave, no small card remain-
ing in leader's hand ; and that queen, then
nine, should show knave, ten remaining
in the leader's hand. If this is approved
of, the effect will be to simplify the leads
from the high cards, and to enable the
leader to communicate all the informa-
tion required as to his suit, on the second
rounds in all cases where the suit is led
twice by the same player. The necessity
for laying down fixed rules for the card
to lead on the third round of a suit is thus
avoided, and this is as it should be, for
after two rounds are out the leader must
often be guided by the previous fall of
the cards. As to the card to select for
the third round, I should add that, though
I saw the effect of the play on these two
combinations, I did not observe its appli-
cation to leads from high cards in general,
until it was pointed out to me by Caven-
dish."

The writer then proceeded to run through
all the various leads from high cards, mak-
er

Whist

ing it plain that in every instance the
third hand gains on the second round all
the knowledge required of the combina-
tion of cards which his partner held origi-
nally in the suit opened by him.

These leads had the important effect of
doing away with the third-lead complica-
tion, explained in a preceding example;
and they are so sound and simple that
they have remained practically unchanged
to this day. They w^ere, shortly after the
appearance of ^'Believer's" article, pub-
lished by Cavendish " in a pamphlet, en-
titled Americcm Leads Simjjlified,

Let me here remark that the term
"American Leads" was originally applied
by '^Cavendisli" to those leads embraced
under the three maxims herein stated. At
present the entire system of modern leads
is generally referred to as "American
Leads." This is not correct, for nearly
all the leads from high cards had their
origin in England; the second and third
maxims of American Leads being grafted
on them to regulate the lead on the sec-
68

Whist

oncl round. Therefore it would be but
just and proper that the system, as a
whole, be called the Anglo-American
Leads.

In a Field article, January 2, 1892,
Believer in Whist Developments" ex-
pressed his doubts as regards the advan-
tage of the second maxim of American
Leads, because of the very precise infor-
mation often given by the fourth-best fol-
lowing the ace, which enabled second hand
to finesse with success. I anticipated some-
thing of the kind, for Cavendish" had
several months before w^ritten to me that
many of the best players had given up the
second maxim, for the reasons set forth
by "Believer." "Cavendish" himself then
took up the subject, and after discussing
it in four Field articles, the first of which
appeared April 2, 1892, arrived at the
conclusion that we would have to return
to the old play, of leading lowest after
the ace. In support of his contention he
drew particular attention to the following
position :

Whist

6,5

Kg, Kn, 3

Ace, Q, 10, 9, 2

A leads the ace, followed by the nine,
on which Y finesses the knave — owing to
information afforded by the play of the
nine — thus gaining a trick and blocking
A's suit. This position is the bugbear of
the opponents of the second maxim, which
otherwise would probably never have been
opposed.

And right here it may be pertinent to
ask, if the lead of the nine after the ace
is disadvantao:eous, whv is the lead of the
nine before the ace not equally so, under
the same condition as to the holding of
second hand ?

^•Believers" article had elicited an an-
swer from Mr. W. S. Fenollosa, of Salem,
Massachusetts— February 3, 1892—
who, although he did not agree, ended his
^ 70

Whist

letter by saying: '*If the lead of ace, and
then the fourth-best, is to be changed, I
trust the amendment will be, ^ace and then
the fif tl>best,' b}^ which method suits of five
cards can be easily distinguished from suits
of more than five." ^'Cavendish" said
that Mr. Fenollosa was right, and he adopt-
ed his suggestion. He did this the more
readily because the second maxim would
still hold good, in this case, under the same
rule applied to the lead with king, queen,
three or more others. "Cavendish" makes
an exception, however, for the combina-
tion of ace, knave, ten, nine, and one or
more small, when he follow^s ace with the
nine, not as a fourth-best, but as a card
of protection." Why the nine, with ace,
queen, ten, is not also a card of protection,
has never been very clear to me.

Before discussing the matter, I may say
in a general way that there is not a sin-
gle rule at whist, even the simplest, which
may not cause an occasional loss, either
from the position of the cards, or from in-
formation conveyed b}^ the play and taken
71

Whist

advantage of by the adversaries. iSo im-
munity from the operation of this general
exception is claimed for American Leads.
It is therefore to be expected that posi-
tions unfavorable to those leads will some-
times occur. The question is, on which
side does the balance of advantage lie in
the long run ?

The advantage of the play is, that it en-
ables partner —

I. To unblock leader's suit in some posi-
tions of the cards.

II. To ascertain earh^ in the play when
leader's suit is established.

The disadvantage is, that second hand
may profit by the information imparted
by the lead and make a successful finesse,
as exemplified in the foregoing diagram.
In the examination of the subject it will
be convenient to designate leader, second,
third, and fourth hands respectively as A,
Y, B, and Z.

To ascertain the comparative frequency,
advantage, and disadvantage of the finess-
ing and unblocking positions, the deter-

Whist

mining of ^vhicli would go far towards
solving the question, involves the consid-
eration of so many factors that it would
be no cause for surprise if a Pole or a
Whitfeld should hesitate to grapple math-
ematically so complex a problem. In de-
fault of such a solution, I shall present
briefl}^ the main arguments in support of
the retention of the second maxim.

In the first place, it is evident that the
change from the fourth to the fifth best
has not entirely done away with the infor-
mation directing Y to finesse successfully,
but has only reduced the number of posi-
tions in which the dreaded contingency
will occur. If the fourth and fifth best are
in sequence, or if there is a break of one
card in the sequence, and that card is held
by Y or falls on the first round, the finesse
is still on. For example, add the eight to
A's cards, in foregoing diagram, or the
seven, giving Y the eight, or the latter
card falling from B's or Z's hand, and Y
can finesse the knave just the same on the
second round. Those who play " by arith-
73

Whist

metic " can use a ten-^nde in cases of leads
of the fifth -best, based on a calculation
similar to that which established the eleven-
rule in cases of leads of the fourth-best.

In the second place, as can be easily
demonstrated, the unblocking positions al-
low of a more general distribution of the
cards among the players than the finessing
positions, therefore it follows that the op-
portunity presents itself more frequently
for unblocking than for finessing. This
advantage is no doubt, to a certain extent,
counterbalanced by the fact that the un-
blocking coup has been played in vain
when the original leader is left with a
card of re-entry at the opportune moment.
Again, B may trump the third round of
the suitj neutralizing the advantage of the
finesse.

Another point which may also be noted
in favor of unblocking is that sometimes
two and even three tricks are gained by it,
Avhile the finesse will seldom result in a
gain of more than one trick.

My personal experience is that both the
74

Whist

finessing and unblocking positions present
themselves at very rare intervals. When

Cavendish" first wrote to me that the
second maxim Avould probably be aban-
doned, I began to watch, both as player
and as a looker-on, for the occurrence of
the finesse position of king, knave, one
small, against ace, queen, ten, nine, and
small. It was two years and a half before
it happened. The rarity of the occur-
rence is somewhat increased by the fact
that the position might be present, but, if
Y is in the lead before A, he may lead
from the king, knave, and two others, if
it is his strongest suit.

Conceding that the advantages and dis-
advantages of the finessing and unblock-
ing features about balance, there is left
the very considerable advantage in favor
of the lead of original fourth- best that
it frequently enables B to ascertain on
the first or second round that his part-
ner's suit is established, thus guiding him
to a successful play of the hand by a
timeh^ lead of trumps. For the above
75

Whist

reasons I have alwaj^s followed the sec-
ond maxim as originally formulated. I
am pleased to know that I have, in that
respect, the support of Mr. C. D. P. Ham-
ilton, the distinguished whist author, who,
after an exhaustive analysis of the ques-
tion, made on some of the lines above
noted, and which was published in Whist
in 1895, reached the conclusion that " the
advantages attending the practical appli-
cation of the second maxim of American
Leads are overwhelming as compared with
the disadvantages."

The question will lose much of the im-
portance which may be attached to it if
the lead of the fourth-best, from ace, five
in suit, now undergoing probation, should
be generally adopted.

With the incident of this disputed
amendment the history of American
Leads closes. If I have gone into many
details which may have proved weari-
some to my readers, I beg their indul-
gence because of the end in view, which
was to bring to their cognizance the fact
76

Whist

that those leads, which are comprehended
in three short maxims, did not spring sud-
denly into existence, but were gradually
worked out and erected into a harmonious
system only after years of patient investi-
gation and trial, aided by intelligent dis-
cussion, and stimulated by a stubborn op-
position.

It is evident from the foregoing that
Whist made great progress in the three
decades preceding the year 1892. The
general tendency of improvement has
been towards defining and generalizing
the principles inherent to the game, with
the result of systematizing the play,
which, in turn, has assisted to further
the interests of the combination of part-
nership hands, which Dr. Pole justly con-
siders to be the broad fundamental prin-
ciple on which the modern scientific game
is based.

©art 1F1F

American Whist Innovations

IT was my intention, when I began
this little work, to confine myself to
the history of American Leads, but
having been repeatedly asked by many
players for an opinion on the later Ameri-
can whist innovations, I decided to avail
myself of the present opportunity to com-
ply with their request by briefl}^ review-
ing the whole subject.

About ten or twelve years ago the
American people seemed to have awaken-
ed to the fact that there was such a game
as scientific whist. Their attention was
doubtless first drawn to it by the publica-
tion in 1887 of Wliist TJniversal^ by the
late George W. Pettes, the first Ameri-
can book on the game, which, however,
owing to the vagaries of the author, in
conjunction with an absurd code of laws,
had but a short-lived influence on the'

F 81

Whist

methods of play. The game soon sprang
into general favor, and the interest in the
pastime grew and expanded until it cul-
minated in the convening of the first
American Whist Congress in 1891, fol-
lowed by the organization of the Amer-
ican Whist League, the enactment and
adoption of an excellent code of laws, and
the monthly publication of an ably edited
journal, Whist^ devoted to the interest of
the game, and now the official organ of
the League."

The introduction of Duplicate Whist,
with all necessary appliances and sched-
ules for play, ingeniously worked out by
Mr. John T. Mitchell, Mr. Edwin C.
Howell, and others, by which the element
of luck was reduced to a minimum, has
done much to increase the popularity of
the game, making possible the contests

■^AU whist - players owe a debt of gratitude to
Mr. Eugene S. Elliott, who was zealously seconded
by Mr. Theodore Schwarz, for inaugurating and
bringing to a successful issue the movement which
resulted in the accomplishment of these ends.
82

Whist

for trophies, inaugurated and conducted
by the American AVhist League and other
kindred associations.

As was to be expected from their pro-
gressive and inventive turn of mind, our
countrymen, as soon as they began to take
an interest in the game, set to work to
improve it, with what success it shall be
my present aim to show.

The more modern American Whist de-
velopments or innovations may be divided
into three classes :

I. Entirely new plays, such as the irreg-
ular opening lead to demand a trump from
partner through a turned -up honor; the
four-trumps signal, and other methods of
showing strength in trumps ; the echo with
high cards; the three-echo; the signal of
holding command of a suit when trumps
are out ; various new modes of discard-
ing, etc.

II. Modifications in the heretofore rec-
ognized leads, viz., the fourth -best from
suits of more than four cards headed by the
ace, without the king or both queen and

Whist

knave. The fourth- best from the king,
knave, ten combination. The ten from
the queen, knave, ten combination, etc.
III. Isew systems.

NEW PLAYS

An examination of the cases coming un-
der this class brino^s out forciblv the fact
that ever\^ other inventor seems to have
a craze to give information of some kind
about his trump suit, by his lead in a plain
suit, or by some modification of the nat-
ural order of playing the cards.

These various schemes for showing four
tramps by the four -signal, by changing
the usual order of the cards in leadins:, bv
the original lead of a high card from a
short suit, and by the lead of a very small
card, will not, it is safe to assert, prove
successful in the majority of cases. This
declaration of strength in trumps is, of
course, an advantage when partner has
such a good hand as will justify an imme-
diate trump lead ; but it is two to one
that he will not hold such cards, and in
84

Whist

that case it is hard to imagine a more
helpless position for the tvro partners to
be in. If their hands are not slaughtered
it is because their adversaries are not pla}^-
ers of a calibre to take advantage of the
information that one of the opponents is
strong in trumps, with probably no very
good plain suit, and that the other has so
weak a hand that he dare not lead trumps
after his partner has declared strength in
them. The call for trumps is not a par-
allel case, as it is a command to partner
for a trump lead and for a generally
aggressive game.

An irregular lead, as a call for trumps
through a turned-up honor, is one of the
schemes which seems to have taken the
popular fancy. Especially does it appear
advantageous when the irregular card is
one from the long suit of the leader, who
therefore does not have to depart from
the important principle of opening from
his strong suit, in the attempt to accom-
plish the end in view. At first I rather

Whist

liked the scheme, but after giving it a
trial I have come to the conclusion that,
in the long-run, this method of play is a
trick-loser. Its successful application de-
pends on several contingencies, therefore
rendering the favorable position of rare
occurrence. For instance, take the case of
the king turned up which is doubly guard-
ed. The leader, holding ace, queen, nine,
and two small trumps, and a plain suit of
five cards, say king, knave, nine, eight, and
one small one, leads the nine of the plain
suit. In the first place, his partner must
be able to read that this is an irregular
lead; then he must hold the knave of
trumps with at least one sma^ll one in order
to hem in the king — a combination of cir-
cumstances which does not occur often.
If third plaj^er holds any other two trumps,
nothing is gained by the play, and delay
is incurred. In the meanwhile the adver-
saries, who see the plan of operation, try to
make, and often succeed in making, one or
more trumps by returning the leader's long
suit and playing for a cross -ruff. They
86

Whist

also hasten to " pick out the plums " by
making their aces and kings, in view of the
strong game disclosed by the demand for
a trump lead through the turned-up honor,
which, after all, is not often caught.

The advantage of echoing on partner's
lead of a small trump, by playing the ace,
then the king — or the king, then the queen,
when the ace is turned up by him or by
the adversary on your right — had long
been apparent, but the method was not
extended to other cases for fear of upset-
ting partners' calculations b}^ the tempo-
rary declaration that you do not hold the
card next lowest to the one with which
you have attempted to take the trick. For
example, take the case of king and queen;
the king is won by the ace, and your part-
ner places the queen anywhere but with
vou, and the manao:ement of his hand
is consequently seriously hampered. One
day it dawned upon me that the solu-
tion of the difficulty was a simple one,
the nature of the play itself being sug-
87 ^

Whist *

gestive of the remedy. It is to extend
the ordinary inference drawn from the
rank of the card with which third hand
has attempted to win the trick so as to
include the possible holding by him of the
card next loioest^ as well as the one next
highest^ to the one played by him. This
exceptional extension of inference does
away witli the heretofore existing objec-
tion, and echoing can now be accomphshed
with any two cards in sequence at the
head of the trump suit without danger
of puzzling your partner. This was point-
ed out by me in an article published in
the Chicago Inter-Ocean^ in March, 1894.

The three - echo is an innovation first
proposed by Dr. H. E. Greene in the
March, 1895, Whist, Its object is to show
three trumps instead of four, by echoing
immediately. Presented originally in rath-
er a crude form, it has since developed
under the investigations and suggestions
of other whist students ; but there seems
as yet no generally accepted manner of
88

Whist

playing it. Some substitute it integrally
for the four-echo ; others use it with the
smaller cards, but echo four trumps at
once with the high indifferent cards.
Again, a class of players echo immediate-
ly Avith three or four trumps ; this, sup-
plemented with a subsequent echo in a
plain suit to show more than three trumps,
is, in my opinion, a method far superior
to the others. With four or more small
trumps the echo is begun with second-
best, followed by the third-best; the ab-
sence of the small trump or trumps from
those played being depended on to show
number. The play of false cards, which
is excellent whist tactics on adverse
trump leads, will often render this scheme
nugatory.

The three-echo, in one or another of its
forms, is, as I understand, widely used
throughout the country. The presump-
tion from this is that it has been found
advantageous as compared Avith the four-
echo; but no conclusive proof of that fact
has yet been furnished to the whist-play-
89

Whist

ing public. The stock argument in sup-
port of the three-echo is that three trumps
are held of tener than four ; therefore you
can inform your partner more frequent-
ly of the holding of three trumps than
you can of the holding of four or five.
This is true ; but it does not necessarily
follow, nor has it been demonstrated, that
any superior advantage can be attributed
to that circumstance. The force of that
argument is, to a considerable extent,
v^eakened by the fact that in a majority
of cases a third round of trumps will be
pla3^ed anyhow by the original leader or
by his partner ; consequentlj^, the infor-
mation imparted by the three-echo proves
to be quite useless, and might as well not
have been given.

By using a table prepared b}^ Mr. Whit-
feld for some of his anah^tical whist
work, I find that in one hundred deals,
when a player holds five trumps — which is
the number generall}^ led from — his part-
ner will hold three trumps thirty-one times,
and four or five trumps twenty -three
90

Whist

times ; a difference of eight, which repre-
sents the number of times that he will be
able to show three trumps in excess of the
number of times that he can show four or
five trumps in the hundred deals.

Now it must be conceded that out of
those thirty - one hands in which the hold-
ing of three trumps is shown, in at least
ei«:ht of them that showiuor — for the rea-
son assio^ned above — mio:ht as well not
have been made, as far as any advantage
to be derived from it is concerned. This
excess of eight hands can therefore be
eliminated from the consideration of the
case, leaving an equal number of hands for
each holding; and there can be no ques-
tion as to the greatly superior advantage,
in an equal number of cases, of the four-
echo over the three -echo, the function of
which being, to a considerable extent, per-
formed by the present sub-echo.

Of course, the three - echo proves useful
on many occasions, but the question is,
on Avhat side does the balance of advan-
tage lie as compared Avith the four -echo?
91

Whist

The distribution of the cards most favor-
able for the three -echo is the compara-
tively rare one where the leader holds
six trumps, his partner three, and each
of the adversaries two. The weak point
— and the case occurs quite frequently —
is when the leader, uncertain as between
the holding of two or four trumps by his
partner, has to take the chances either of
drawing one of his partner's trumps or
allowing one or two trumps to remain in
the adv^ersaries' hands, with perhaps disas-
trous results in either case.

The three-card echo is now undergoing
the test of experience, and until a more
favorable light is thrown on the subject I
shall rest content with the four-card echo
and its supplement, the sub-echo.

The change -your- suit signal, intro-
duced by General Dray son, and explained
in the first part of this work, is generall}^
used in this country to indicate command
of the suit, a meaning just the reverse of
that intended by its originator. I have
92

Whist

always given preference to the "change-
your-suit" signification, because of the
positive direction which it can give to a
partner to do a certain thing, viz., change
the suit, while the other method indicates
to him a fact only — command of the suit.
I will attempt to show how this difference
helps the argument in favor of the Draj^-
son method.

There are positions w^here, although you
do not hold the command of the suit be-
ing led, you want it continued, as a change
of suit might prove disadvantageous. To
illustrate :

8,7,6 C

Ace, Q D

Y Z

Ace, Kg., 9 C

9, 8 D

A leads the king of clubs, followed by
the ace, on which B plays the six and seven
respectively. Although B has not the best

Whist

club left, he does not ask his partner to
change the suit, because if Z gets the lead
on the third round, B is sure of two tricks
in diamonds. Now an American player,
to attain the same end, would have to
make believe he held the queen of clubs,
by giving the signal to induce his partner
to continue the suit. Another case :

Ace, Q D

Q., 6, 2 C

Y Z
A

9, 8 D

Ace, Kg., 9 0

In this case, although B has the best
club, he requests his partner to change the
suit by playing the six and two of clubs
respectively on the king and ace led by
A, because it would be an obvious disad-
vantage to him if he gets in on the next
round, when he would have to lead from
his ace, queen tenace. Again, the Amer-
94

Whist

ican player would have to simulate weak-
ness by abstaining from giving the signal,
in order that A may change the suit. In
both cases the Drayson B tells his part-
ner directly what to do. The American
B is obliged to have recourse to pretence
in order that his partner may inferential-
ly play to the best advantage. It is true
that the result may be the same in either
case, but can there be two opinions as to
which of these methods is better fit to be-
come a component part of the structure
of scientific whist ?

The discard has not escaped the improve-
ment mania, and several new schemes have
been invented, which are being used by
w^hist- players according to their fancy.
So far none of them has proved superior
in efficacy to the old system founded on
sound principles — that is, to discard from
w^eakness in the absence of any indication
of trump strength on either side, or when
partner has shown such strength, and to
discard from your best - protected suits

Whist

when the adversaries are strong in trumps.
It may turn out, however, that your part-
ner is superior in trump power to the ad-
versary who has led them ; in which case
you discard from your weak suit. This
constitutes a system which, in conjunction
with the Drayson reverse discard, covers
the ground better than any yet devised,
especially if you bear in mind that the
discard is not a command from partner to
play any one suit, as most players seem
to understand it. Inferentially, you get
the information that he is weak or strong
in some particular suit, and it is for you
to exercise judgment as to which one it is
better to lead, taking into consideration
your own cards and the existing condition
of the game generally ; not forgetting
that, when the adversary on your right
has the lead, your partner's discard may
be a deceptive one, to induce a lead to his
best suit.

The proper play, under circumstances
involving discards and the inferences to
be drawn therefrom, is one of consider-

Whist

able difficulty, and it requires an intelli-
gent perception of the game in both part-
ners to grapple with the situation success-
fully.

There is one method of discarding which
cannot be dismissed with a mere pass-
ing mention, because, owing probably to
its unique character, it proves attractive
to the average w^hist- player. I refer to
^vhat is known as the rotary discard, the
object of w^iich is to show one's strong
suit by a single discard. It was first sug-
gested, in January, 1895, Wliist^ by Mr.
P. J. Tormey, the father of whist on the
Pacific slope, who says that the idea Avas
taken from a Mexican game. The end in
view is accomplished by throwing away
a card from a suit which conventionally
indicates strength in another suit, follow-
ing in a certain agreed-upon rotation. The
usual arrangement is spades, hearts, clubs,
and diamonds ; therefore a discard of a
spade means that hearts is the strong suit;
if hearts happen to be trumps, then the
next suit, clubs, is the strong one.
G 97

Whist

Of all the arbitrary conventional meth-
ods of play this takes the palm, and on
that account alone should not be counte-
nanced by an}^ one who desires to see the
game of whist maintained, as far as it can
be accomplished, on the scientific lines on
which it has been gradually constructed.
Apart from this view of the question,
which may be considered as mere senti-
ment, I think that an examination of its
practical side will show that there is no
advantage in that mode of discardino;.

An evident objection is, that the discard
is always from weakness, which is contrary
to the well-recoo^nized maxim of the o^ame,
to keep guards to the high cards in A^our
short suits when the opponents have dis-
closed strength in trumps. The impossi-
bility of observing that maxim under this
system of discarding may cause the loss
of many a trick, by enabling one of the
adversaries to establish and bring in a
long suit.

Another objection is, that sometimes
v^ou cannot discard from the indicator
98

Whist

suit without probable or certain loss. Sup-
pose you bold the ace and king, or king
and queen, of spades, you surely will not
discard one of them to show that hearts
is 3^our strong suit. You are then forced
to another discard, w^hich will lead your
partner astray as to the constitution of
your hand. The same difficulty will pre-
sent itself when you are void of the indi-
cator suit, or w^hen j^ou hold only one card
of your partner's declared or presumed
suit, and that card belongs to the indica-
tor suit. All of which goes to show" that
any rule of play intended to convey infor-
mation not only ceases to be valuable, but
becomes actually detrimental if it cannot
be strictly adhered to under all circum-
stances.

The occasion for the use of this method
of discarding can present itself but rarel}^,
for the following reasons : The original
lead of the hand must be trumps, other-
w^ise one plain suit will have been led, and
you can show your strong suit in the usual
way by discarding from one or the other
99

Whist

of the remaining plain suits. Then you
must hold just one trump less than the
number of leads which will be made con-
secutively, otherwise you will get two dis-
cards, and thus indicate your strong suit;
and, also, if there is a break in the trump
leads, a plain suit will be opened by the
adversary, and you can show j^ours with-
out any necessity to rotate. This is also the
case when your partner is so long in trumps
that he can afford to play an extra round
for the sole purpose of giving you a sec-
ond discard, by which he may ascertain
your strong suit. Again, when the trump
lead comes from the adversary, you can
under the recognized system disclose your
strong suit at once by a single discard;
therefore there is no advantage for the
" rotary " in that case.

It is evident, therefore, that the oppor-
tunity to make use of the rotary discard
Avill present itself at verj^ rare intervals,
and when it does it comes burdened always
with one permanent source of weakness,
and occasionally trammelled with the un-
100

Whist

favorable holding already pointed out,
which more than neutralizes any advan-
tage claimed for it.

For these reasons, when you are thread-
ing the discard maze, ride not the unreli-
able Mexican wheel.

The discard has been put to a new use,
as appears by the following extract from
an article published in December, 1898,
WJiist: ''If partner discards, whether sec-
ond, third, or fourth in hand, a card lower
than a five-spot, say ; he indicates his will-
ingness to be forced, while his discard of a
five or higher card indicates his disinclina-
tion to use his trumps for forcing purposes."

This device embodies another conven-
tion, pure and simple, and on that account
is to be deprecated ; but viewed on its
merits, it is doubtful that it will prove ad-
vantageous in the long-run, for, in com-
mon with the rotary discard and many of
the new-fangled notions, it requires what
might be styled hands made to order "
to insure success ; otherwise you may be
101

Whist

obliged to discard a higher card than a
four from your weak suit when you are
anxious to ruff, or a lower card than the
five when you desire not to be forced. A
misfit, which might cost you dear, and
which, perhaps, can only be avoided by
using a card from your long suit to throw
away, thus seriously impairing its effi-
cacy, besides misleading your partner as
to your best suit. Again, the mandate on
partner is not without its dangerous side,
especially when an adversary has the lead.
In case you signal a desire to be forced,
he will, of course, discontinue the suit,
and a trump attack by the adversary on
your left is indicated ; in the reverse case,
the force will be given and your trump
strength may be irretrievably impaired.
However, players who use these signals
claim that they are trick- winners. Ex-
perience will show if the claim is well
founded, or if it is, at present, based
merely on the want of familiarity with
the system by the opponents of the play-
ers habitually using it.

102

Whist

One thing is certain — inventions of this
kind are knocking all the brains out of
Whist. It was a nice question of percep-
tion to decide when to force and when
not to force one's partner under condi-
tions which, on the surface, Avould not jus-
tify the one or the other pla}^, according
to the elementary rules which regulate the
force.

It is an old and sound rule in whist to
keep the adversaries in ignorance as re-
gards your holding in their strong suits,
whenever it is possible to do so without
confusing your partner. But it seems that
this was all wrong, for we now have an
invention called — after its originator — the
Street Attachment^ by which very precise
information is given to an opponent con-
cerning his strong suit. My opinion of
this device can be best expressed by the
declaration that my heart warms to the
adversary who kindly informs me, in ac-
cordance with that method, that he holds
three cards of my suit without an honor,
103

Whist

by playing the middle, then highest, fol-
lowed by lowest of the suit; or that he
holds four, by playing lowest, then a
higher card ; or that he has the ability to
w^in the third round, either with an honor
or with a trump, by playing any card fol-
lowed by a lower one.

Those who practise the Street Attach-
ment are beo^innino: to realize the dan-
gers attending the play, w^hich they are
tiwing to avoid by taking refuge behind
false cards, with the difficult task on their
hands of informing their partners that
they have sought cover, and at the same
time of concealing that fact from their op-
ponents.

Another serious objection to the inven-
tion is that any one using it cannot call
for trumjDS in the adversary's suit, as the
play of unnecessarily high cards is used
to impart the information regarding the
third round, explained above.

There are other fads, too numerous and
insio:nificant to review. As retT;'ards one of

Whist

the latest of them, however, I must re-
mark that the climax of conventionalism
in whist appears to have been reached by
that school of players who never lead the
ace Avith four others — not the king or
both queen and knave — unless they hold
a singleton in another sr.it!

MODIFIED LEADS

Another American innovation is the
lead of fourth -best from suits of five or
more cards headed by the ace, but not
containing the king or both queen and
knave. This was first practised by the
celebrated Minneapolis Duplicate Whist
team, and upon their high recommenda-
tion as an improvement on the old lead
of the ace it has been extensively tried,
and has found many adherents.

Public opinion became so pronounced
in its favor as to impel Mr. Whit f eld to
investigate the matter. After a most ex-
haustive analysis of the case of the ace
with four small ones, published in nine
Field articles in 1894, and which involved,

105

Whist

among other things, the consideration of
ten different factors which affect the prob-
lem, he worked out a slight advantage of
seven tricks in a thousand deals in favor
of the lead of the small card.

Mr.Whitfeld concluded his examination
with some instructive comments which my
readers will no doubt prefer to have in
his own words. The}^ are as follows :

This balance is extremelv small, and
it must further be pointed out that the
indirect gains are chiefly connected with
the establishment of the suit, and will not
often make the difference of the odd trick,
which counts double. I regret that I can-
not arrive at a more conclusive opinion,
but with strict impartiality I cannot state
the case more definitely than as follows :
By leading a small card the player in-
curs a very small probable loss, in re-
turn for which, by retaining the ace, he
has more command over the course of
pla}^ of the hand, resulting in a better
chance of bringing in his long suit and a
decreased chance of the adversaries doing
106

Whist

so ; and that, subject to certain conditions,
this advantage of keeping the command
will just compensate him for the small
risk of losing a trick through not leading
the ace. One of the conditions is that the
hand should be played early in the game,
so that the chance of establishing the suit
is an important factor. Late in the game,
when only a few points are required to
win or save it, it is of more importance to
make tricks early ; it is then better to lead
the ace than to play a waiting game, giv-
ing a better chance of bringing in a suit.
The player must have a good partner, who
will assist him bv returnino' the suit in-
stead of opening a suit of his own of mod-
erate strength. Further, he must be a
good pla\"er himself, able to profit by the
command of the suit. It is often a true
instinct which prompts bad players to
make tricks early.

There are circumstances in which the
fourth-best can certainly be led with ad-
vantage, viz., when the leader has good
strength in trumps, but is not suflBciently

107

Whist

strong to justify an original trump lead.
It is then better to lead the small card,
partly because the plaj^er is more likely to
obtain the lead at a later stage, when a
trump lead may be desirable ; parth^ be-
cause leading two rounds of the suit at
once is more likely to give the adversaries
a chance of ruffing the suit.

" To sum up the case, though a small
card can be led early in the game, and,
with a good partner, without probable
loss, and under some circumstances with
advantage, yet there cannot be laid down
a general law in favor of the lead of the
fourth-best ; and in advanced stages of the
score the lead of the ace must be ad-
hered to.

I may add a word on the question of
the lead from ace, queen, with five in suit.
On the whole, the arguments are rather
stronger for the lead of the ace. There
is no danger of giving the complete com-
mand of the suit to the adversaries, and
if the third hand plays the king to the
ace the loss is not so great. On the other

108

Whist

hand, the suit being stronger and more
likely to be established, there is a greater
advantao-e in beino; able to obtain the lead
on the second round, as Avill be the case
when a small card is led. I think that
with this combination also a small card
should be led when the player is strong in
trumps.

1 think it may be said generally of the
leads from a suit headed by the ace with-
out the king, or both queen and knave,
that though Avith a certain class of hands
a small card may be led with advantage,
under most circumstances the better lead
is the ace."

The result of Mr. Whitfeld's arduous
labor does not sustain the claim made by
American plaj^ers of a decided advantage
consequent upon the lead of the fourth-
best ; for, according to him, it is about an
even thing between the two lines of play.
This may be due to the fact that the only
consideration he gave to the case of an
honor being held with the ace was what is
contained in the few lines quoted above in
109

Whist

regard to the holding of the queen ; for he
had only undertaken to examine the case
of the ace with four small cards. Conse-
quently he did not look into the question
of the possible gainful finesses which oc-
casionally present themselves when the
queen or the knave is held with the ace.

Suppose the cards to lie as in the foUow-
ino; diaOTams :

9, V

Ace, Q,

8,3,2

Kg.,

Ace, Kn., 8, 8, 2

Here, as can be readily seen, are finess-
ing positions where, with trump strength,
A and B may possibly make a gain of
four tricks in one case and of three tricks
110

Whist

in the other; and when it is borne in mind
that the American player, if strong in
trumps, leads the fourth -best of his ace
suit as readily with six or seven in suit as
he does with five, the possible gain may
be still greater.

Even without an honor accompanying
the ace there are finessing positions which
might yield the same advantage ; for ex-
ample, take the following cases :

Q., V

9, 6, 5

Ace, 10, 8

, 8, 2

Q., 10,

7,6

Ace, 9, 8,

3,2

These positions, favorable to the lead
of the fourth -best, do occur sometimes;
111

Whist

still Mr. Whitfeld appears not to have
given them due weight, for he disposes of
the finesse question with the following
remarks :

" I have taken no account of finessing,
first, because the balance of gains and
losses from finessing is usually very small ;
secondly, because this small balance will
probably be nearly equal in the two meth-
ods of pla}^, and the balance of the bal-
ances, so to speak, may be expected to be
extremely small."

The first part of this proposition is cor-
rect when the balance is between one trick
lost or gained hy the finesse ; but the case
is different when the successful finesse
results not only in the capture of the
second-best card, but at the same time
establishes and brings in the suit — a pos-
sible gain of several tricks as against the
loss of probably but one trick in case the
cards do not lie favorably for the finesse.
As to the second proposition, I cannot
find, after the lead of the ace, positions for
finessing comparable as to possible favor-

113

Whist

able results to those which may occur
when the lead is the fourth-best.

There is another case favorable to the
lead of the small card — it is when the
player, having no card of re-entry except-
ing the ace, passes the second round. Ex-
amine this position :

Kg., 7, 4

Kii., 10

Ace, 8, 6, 5, 3

A leads the five, Y plays the four, B
the queen, Z the ten ; B now leads trumps,
and succeeds in exhausting them from all
the hands. B gets in and leads the nine ;
Z plays the knave ; A passes the trick, as
the two is marked in B's hand and king
is guarded on his left. When B obtains
the lead again, he plays the two, and A
gets his two weaklings home, under the
protecting wing of his ace. With the
above distribution of the cards, four tricks

H 113

Whist

are made in the suit by A B under the
assumed circumstances of the case. If the
ace is led, only two can be taken by them,
and probably only one, for the queen will
be lost if Y forces his partner. Although
such positions as the above occur very
rarely, and the finessing positions present
themselves with but limited frequenc}^, as
experience demonstrates, still they are
factors not to be imored in determinino^
the balance of advantage in the two leads.

I have made these points not without
misgivings, for I am aware that Mr. Whit-
feld usually goes to the bottom of any
question wliich he investigates, and he
may bring me up with a round turn by
pointing out that all the cases suggested
by me are covered, directly or indirectly,
by his analysis.

Admitting, however, that it is about an
even thing between the two leads, as Mr.
Whitfeld makes it out, I give preference
to the fourth-best lead generally, because
of its affording greater scope for interest-
ing play, as explained above; such as finess-
114

Whist

ing or passing the second trick, as the
best or only chance of bringing in the re-
mainder of the long suit ^vith the ace on
the third round.

Another new lead which is now much
in vogue is the opening of a long suit from
the top, w^hen not containing an honor.
The advantage for this mode of play is
that if your partner, from his holding and
from the fall of the cards, recognizes the
nature of the lead, he Avill be prevented
from sacrificino; a f>:ood card. For in-
stance, you lead the nine, the highest of
a four-card suit, and your partner, hav-
ing the king, queen, and ten, holds the
trick with the queen. He sees that you
have led from the top of nothing," as it
is called, and does not send his king to
slaughter.

The objections to the play are :
First. If partner, from your lead, reads
3^our suit as the orthodox strong one, he
will venture on a trump lead, which may
turn out badly, or, being uncertain, he is

115

Whist

deterred from making an otherwise judi-
cious trump attack when the lead happens
to be from a long, strong suit.

Second. The disclosing of weakness in
the long suit — always considered a disad-
vantage— directs the riglit-hand adversary
to keep finessing.

Third. The suit may ultimately be com-
manded by a card in adverse hand lower
than the top card led originalh^

It looks as if the disadvantage attend-
ing the new play outweighs the advan-
tage.

Another innovation which has met with
favor, and which, I regret to say, has re-
ceived the endorsement of the last ^hist
Congress, is the lead of the ten from
queen, knave, ten, instead of the queen
as usually practised. The object of the
change is to avoid the dual signification
of the queen lead from the ascending and
descending sequences. This is in the di-
rection of simplification, which is in itself
desirable ; but, as a consequence of the

116

Whist

change, the lead of the ten had to be aban-
doned from the king, knave, ten combi-
nation, and the fom-th-best substituted;
otherwise ^ye woukl have two ten leads
instead of two queen leads, and nothing
would be gained in the wa}^ of simplifica-
tion.

In my opinion the lead of the fourtli-
best from king, knave, ten, in plain suits,
is a trick-loser, and is not compensated for
by any presumed advantage resulting from
the suppression of one of the queen leads;
for its present dual signification is very
seldom a source of embarrassment to the
leader's partner, as the holding of the
king or knave or ten by him, or the fall
of one of these tell-tale cards from the
adversaries' hands on the first round, will
disclose the holdino^ led from. Failino^
this, the second lead from the suit will set-
tle that point ; information which comes
in ample time for any useful purpose, for
the showing of five cards by the first lead,
except when knave is led, is of no prac-
tical advantaf>:e, because the unblockino:

117

Whist

by partner is always begun on the first
round.

Tlie reason for the century-old lead of
the ten, from king, knave, ten, is to pre-
vent an adversary from taking the first
trick with a card lower than the ten, and
the certainty of commanding the suit on
the third round. But the greatest advan-
tage resulting from the lead is the dis-
closure of the holding of such strong cards
as the king and knave, which may induce
partner to make a successful trump at-
tack, w^hich he w^ould not attempt when
a fourth-best from the leader w^ould have
left him in ignorance as to the strength
of the latter's suit. I have in mind many
instances where, holding ace, queen, one
or more others, I have taken my partner's
ten and led trumps, with strength in them,
and made great scores.

The champions of these two leads ad-
vance the argument of " too much infor-
mation" against the present ten lead, by
w^hich second hand, with ace, queen, and
small, or wuth the queen and one other, is
118

Whist

directed to cover the ten led with the
queen.

This advantage to second player is not
so great as might be imagined ; with queen,
one small, a trick is generally gained if
fourth hand has the ace ; yet if fourth-best
is led, the queen singly guarded may still
make against the finesse of the knave.
The information redounds also to the ben-
efit of the leader, for if his ten is not cov-
ered by the queen he has an advantageous
finesse of the knave, in case he is strong
enough in trumps to hazard it, for he
knows that he cannot possibly capture the
queen, if to his left, because it must have
been at least twice guarded originally.

In some occasional positions he will
have a sure finesse. To illustrate :

Ace, 8, 5

Q., 9, 2

Kg., Kn., 10, 7, 4, 3
119

Whist

First trick — ten, six, ace, two.

Second trick — B returns eight, Z plays
the nine; A now knows — bar a possible
call for trumps by Y — that Z has the
queen, because if Y had it he would have
covered the ten on the first round, with
only two in suit ; so he finesses the knave,
remaining with the full control of his
suit.

As to the case of ace, queen, and small
in second hand, both of those high cards
would make anyhow if third player has
three cards of the suit ; and in many cases
it is a positive advantage to the leader to
have the queen and ace played on the first
two rounds, leaving him with his suit un-
obstructed.

As my long experience has convinced
me that the ten is the best lead from the
king, knave, ten combination, I give my
unqualified adherence to it.

In trumps, however, with only four in
suit, I consider the low card the better
lead generally, as it may be of great im-
portance to command the fourth round,
120

Whist

and thus have the power to extract the
last trumps from the opponents.

As a consequence of the foregoing views,
I cannot endorse the lead of ten from
queen, knave, ten, as it is susceptible of
demonstration that the two ten leads can-
not coexist without creating confusion.

As far back as September, 1867, Mo-
gul" advocated in the Field the lead of
the ten from queen, knave, ten, and two
or more small ones. The American player
leads the ten also, with four in suit as well
as with more — showing number on the
second round in the usual way, with the
indifferent high cards.

Owing to the short time which has
elapsed since the introduction of the
fourth -best lead from the king, knave,
ten combination, there has been no real
test of the comparative merits of the two
leads, nor will there ever be any, if every-
body takes to leading the fourth-best.

It has been proposed to change the lead,
from the ace, king, queen, knave, five or

121

Whist

more in suit, from the knave to the queen,
so that the lead of the knave would al-
waj^s deny the ace. In my opinion, the
change would not be advisable, because,
under the present system, the partner of
the leader has the advantage of knowing
after the first round of the suit that the
latter holds the ace, w^hile the adversaries
cannot place it ; and it cannot be gainsaid
that, at whist, anj^ line of play is advan-
tageous which gives information to part-
ner to the exclusion of the opponents.
Now make the knave deny the ace, and
you lose the advantage and transfer it, as
it were, to the other side. Suppose, for
example, that one of the adversaries trumps
the suit ; the ace being marked with lead-
er's partner, the ruff can be safely con-
tinued as long as the ace does not fall.

The only advantage which has been
claimed for the proposed change is that
leader's partner will know if the ace is
held back. This knowledge would be of
very little practical value to him ; it is the
leader to whom it might prove of some

Whist

importance, and he cannot know. Be-
sides, this line of play is seldom resorted
to on original leads from plain suits, as
it is not considered good whist.

The advantage of the proposed change
being practically nil^ and the disadvantage
being marked, I see no reason for aban-
doning the present lead of the knave, be-
cause the ace is included in the sequence.

XEW SYSTEMS

American inventive genius soon tired of
wasting its resources on the minor details
of the game, and nothing short of the
creation of new S3^stems could now sat-
isfy its vaulting ambition. The result is
systems sufficient to gratify all tastes.
Among the most notable are the Howell
system, the short-suit sj^stem, and the va-
rious modified derivatives from the latter.
A full definition and explanation of them
all would fill a volume, the perusal of
which w^ould probably leave the reader
in a state of mind bordering on distrac-
tion if he attempted to master their arbi-
123

Whist

trary rules, to reconcile their contradic-
tions, and to harmonize their clashing
conventions.

It is safe to predict that the Hovrell
sj^stem, as well as others based on purely
arbitrary conventions, must eventualh^ go
to the Trail. Among the many good rea-
sons for this is the fact that, to work them
successfully, one must hold hands made to
order. In systems where every card led
originally is invested with a certain defi-
nite meaning regarding the suit led from
and the general character of the leader's
hand, and the particular card which should
convey that information is lacking from
the hand, another card must be led which,
having a totally different signification, will
deceive the partner, with the consequent
loss of tricks, and, worse still, the loss of
confidence in the whole disjointed contri-
vance.

The short-suit system, called by its ex-
ponents the " common-sense game,'' to dis-
tinguish it, I presume, from the fool game

12-i

Whist

of Clay, Pole, Cavendish, Drayson, Ames,
Hamilton, ^York, Coffin, and their numer-
ous followers, requires more than a pass-
ing notice, because many players have
joined the ranks of the common -sense
players, allured by specious arguments and
by the parading of deals specially gotten
up or actually played, in which gains were
made over the long -suit openings, owing
to the favorable position of the cards or
to the bad play of the other side.

When this system was inaugurated it
was understood that the original lead of
the hand was always to be from a short
suit, including a singleton; but this kind
of game did not w^ork w^ell, and singletons
and weak two-card suits were abandoned,
and leads were confined to supporting
cards" of a certain rank. Then came a
partial back-down — a long-suit lead with
trump strength and cards of re-entry, or
a strengthening card from your long suit,
if too weak to play the long-suit game;
otherwise lead the best card of your short
suit, provided it is above an eight and not

125

Whist

higher than a queen : all these plays in
preference to leading from a suit in which
you hold either a major or a minor tenace.

Still the short -suiters wandered in the
cheerless desert of uncertainty, and when
they called on their Moses to lead them to
the promised land of system he frankly
admitted that the land was not yet in
sight, but w^ould no doubt be reached in
due course of time.

The hope thus held out to his followers
by Mr. Foster has evidently proved delu-
sive, for the methods of common - sense
play as defined by him can scarcely be con-
sidered a system. He says : " Common-
sense players use no number showing leads,
no trump signals, no echoes, no four-sig-
nals, no calls through honors turned, no
directive discards, nor anything of that
kind. They confine themselves to the very
simple principle of playing strong suits
up and w^eak suits down. IsTone of their
plays have any occult meaning, but they
simply indicate that they are managing
their hands according to their lights.

126

Whist

Their partners are not directed by any
private or conventional signals, and are
free to infer what they can from the cards
played by their partners and the apparent
designs of their adversaries." To the be-
ginner the charming simplicity of this un-
hampered "Chacun pour soi et Dieu pour
tons" style of game must be very capti-
vating.

Yet this informative game, thus repu-
diated by the short- suiters, has always
been admitted to be the most interesting
one, because better than any other it lays
the foundation for the play of fine strokes
at the end of a hand. Besides, in this
game you have the advantage of being
able to withhold information w^henever
you may deem it expedient to do so — for
example, when the hand has developed
sufficiently to indicate that a dark game
is advisable, or w^hen your partner dis-
closes a very poor hand, and especially
when you discover that he is not familiar
with the recognized rules of play. Mat-
thews puts the latter contingency in this
127

Whist

wise: "It would be of no advantage to
speak French like Voltaire if you live with
persons w^ho are ignorant of the language."

Deprive the game of its informator}^
character and it immediately loses its
chief attraction, w^hich lies in the striv-
ing of each player to make the most of
the information imparted alike by friend
and foe. For my part, I am free to admit
that I would not care to play whist had I
no other alternative than to take part in
a game w^here all the participants would
have to angle for tricks at hap-hazard in
the dark waters of concealment, purposely
made murky by this cuttle-fish school of
players.

That Mr. Foster knew what he was
talking about when he said that there was
no system for short -suit play is proved
by the fact that Messrs. Howell, Street,
Starnes, and Keiley, who have tried their
hands at it, have each laid down rules of
play totall}'' at variance with those advo-
cated by the others, leaving the short-
suiters in a greater quandary than ever.
128

Whist

The perusal of the writings of these
authors, with all their new-fangled whims
and arbitrary rules, which, clashing with
the old ones, necessitates the abandonment
of the latter, bring the saddening convic-
tion to the mind that the science of Whist
is retrograding; instead of evolution we
have involution, which, if persisted in, will
gradually bring us back to " Whisk and
Swabbers," and from that to the proto-
plastic epoch of the game.

In my opinion it is susceptible of dem-
onstration that the original lead of a sup-
porting card must result in loss in a certain
percentage of cases. It is admitted that
an established suit is a power in the game
when accompanied by trump strength or
cards of re-entry; it cannot be denied
that a supporting card helps materially to
establish a suit ; there are two adversaries
to one partner, therefore the chances are
two to one that such a card, as an original
lead of a hand, will benefit the opponents.
But you will answer that the test by act-
ual play does not show any such great

Whist

preponderance of advantage. The reason
is plain — Duplicate Whist has established
the fact that some classes of hands are
good for a certain number of tricks, no
matter how opened, provided the play is
otherwise good. There are other cases —
outside of the contingency of the estab-
lishment of a suit — where^ owing to the
position of the cards, sometimes the short-
suit lead and sometimes the long-suit lead
will result in a gain ; but we can assume
that this will average in the long-run, for
each kind of lead. Again, in some hands
the supporting card does not help to es-
tablish a suit, and when, in other cases, the
suit is established as a consequence of the
lead, the favored player cannot bring it
in, for lack of strength in trumps or cards
of re-entry; but in a certain number of
hands he will have the necessary power
to bring the established suit into play, and
the two-to-one odds will then tell against
the lead. The percentage of these cases
must necessarily be small, but whatever
it may be, it is a constant factor of loss
130

Whist

for the short -suit opening as compared
with the long- suit one, which, if it does
not result in the bringiug-in of the long
cards of the suit, works no harm by help-
ing to establish a long suit of the adver-
saries.

It is probable that this percentage of
losing positions has made itself felt in the
four or five years during which short-suit-
ism has been running its course, for it is a
patent fact that the interest it once evoked
is on the wane, and many short-suiters are
returning to the practice of the orthodox
game.

It is truly a relief to turn from the in-
congruities of these mongrel systems and
empirical rules of play to the considera-
tion of the lono;-suit scientific Q-snne of
whist, of which Cavendish was the latest
and greatest exponent. Here, at least,
we have a game founded on reason, prin-
ciples, extension of principles, mathemat-
ical calculations, and the accumulated ex-
perience of a century and a half — all

131

Whist

brought into harmonious action by the
aid of certain conventions in accordance
with and suggested by principle, witli
the consequent development of a logical
system of pky easy to understand and
not difficult to follow.

If a beginner should ask why certain
leads or plays are made he will get a
satisfactory answer. For instance, should
he inquire why the fourth-best is led where
a long suit is opened with a low card, he
will be told, Because every long suit is
treated as a four-card suit in order to re-
tain the information convej^ed by the lead
of the lowest of a four-card suit, as ex-
plained in the first part of this work.
Wh}^, with two cards remaining of part-
ner's suit after the first round — say the
four and two — you return the four in
preference to the two? Because you are
extending to the small cards the rule
which teaches to strengthen and unblock
partner's suit b}^ playing out your high
card. Why, Avith the combination of
king, queen, Icnave, and one or more
132

Whist

small, you lead the king with one other
and the knave with more than one ? Be-
cause in the latter case you want to in-
duce your partner to play the ace on
your knave to clear your suit, which he
would not do if you played the king.
Why, after the ace has been played on the
knave, you follow with the king, holding
five in suit, and with the queen, holding
more than five? Because, by extending
this system of play to the remaining high
indifferent cards of the suit, although the
primary reason no longer exists, you give
valuable information to your partner as
to the number of cards in your long suit.
And so on — a good reason for ever}^ pl^J-
But, in the purely arbitrary systems, if
the learner asks. Why does the lead of a
small card denote strength, and w^hy is it
a demand for a trump lead from partner?
or, Why does the lead of a six, seven, or
eight indicate a ruffing game ? Ave answer^
Because we have agreed it should have that
meaning. Why does the lead of the queen
show the ability to win the third round ? or
133

Whist

^Ylly does a low card played on adversary's
lead followed b}" a higher card show four
in the suit ? Because it is so nominated
in our Avhist bond, and so on — nothing
but prior understanding and agreement.
As there are several systems of that kind,
it is impossible that they can all be sound.
The question as to which is the best has
but little interest for the adherents of the
lono^-suit svstem, who naturallv consider
their game the best of all.

Another argument of the short -suiters
in support of their game is that it is more
difficult to ]Aa\\ and consequently more
interesting, than the informative long-suit
game, which, apparentlj^, is entirely too
easy for them. Yet when they all follow-
ed the latter system I do not remember
that the whist public was dazzled by nu-
merous grand coups^ or by manj^ instances
of trumping with the best trump to throw
the lead with a losing one, or by playing
the second-best card on the best, holding
major -tenace over minor -tenace on the
right as the only chance of winning three
134

Whist

out of the last four tricks, or many brill-
iant plays to the score, etc. It is a mor-
tifj^ing admission to make, but we long-
suiters cannot deny that the game, which
is too easy for the short-suiters, taxes our
brains to no small extent.

Having alluded to playing to the score,
a few remarks on that subject may not
be amiss, because many of those who play
duplicate whist exclusively do not seem
to realize the fall significance of the term,
imagining that the play consists merely
in a backward game when the score is
advanced, or in risking the loss of a trick
to win the game, when otherwise a score
of six would be a certainty. In its broad-
er sense, playing to the score means that,
when 3^ou require a certain number or all
of the remaining tricks to save the game,
the play must be shaped to that end.
There is no incident in a game of whist
more interesting to a player than when he
is faced with a problem of that kind, and
he has but one course to pursue in order

135

Whist

to solve it. He generally knows the
position of some of the cards, and he
must assume that the others lie favora-
bly for the desired result, and then play
accordingly, all usual rules being disre-
garded. This point cannot be better illus-
trated than by quoting James Clay, the
foremost English whist-player of his day,
who makes it very clear to the beginner.
He says :

" Let me take a tolerably obvious ex-
ample, because it is obvious and fresh in
my memory, and not as being an unusu-
ally fine coicp, for any good player would
have played in the same way.

" There are five cards in hand and four
trumps only remain in. Of those I hold
the tenace (call it ace and queen), and I
know that my right-hand adversary holds
the remaining two (call them king and
knave). He also holds a thirteenth card
of another suit. My remaining cards are
the ace, king, and a small card of another
suit; I know nothing more of the position
of the cards, but in order to save the

136

Whist

game it is necessary for me to make every
trick, and it is my lead.

" Place these cards before you and you
will see that if I play, in the ordinarj^
way, my ace and king, I have lost the
game, as my right-hand adversary must
make one trick.

" There is but one chance for me, viz.:
to put my partner into the lead, when, if
he has the best cards of the fourth suit, I
shall throw on them my ace and king of
diamonds, remaining with my tenace of
trumps ; or if my right-hand adversary
should trump this fourth suit, I overtrump
him, draw his other trump, and make m}^
ace and king, in either case winning the
required five tricks.

I therefore play my small card. This
coup came off, my partner made the trick
and held the two best cards in the fourth
suit, which he very properly played. The
combination is, comparatively, with many
others, a simple one, yet it serves to illus-
trate my meaning, as it necessitated, as
the one single possibility of saving the

137

Whist

game, the favorable event of four chances.
My partner must be able to win the first
trick ; he must hold at least two winning
cards in the fourth suit, and m}^ right-hand
adversary must hold at least one of my suit."

Clav, furthermore, savs : The success
of 3^our acuteness may not be frequent, for
in an intricate combination the chances
will, of course, generally defeat you, and
j^ou may feel that, after all 3'our pains,
the difference between a merely good
pLayer and yourself is practically very
slight ; but when the position of the cards
favor you, and the chance which you have
foreseen comes off, you will be well repaid
by a pleasant recollection of your skill for
many a long day, and by the conscious-
ness that you take rank among the mas-
ters of the game."

This ver}" interesting feature of playing
to the score is lacking in duplicate whist ;
hence, in that game, the opportunity for
fine play does not present itself so often
as in ordinary or ''straight" whist, as it
is generally called.

138

Whist

My advice to beginners is to learn the
long-suit, Anglo-American Leads system in
all its details, including the play of second
and third hands, and the other rules of
the game ; ay hen pretty well grounded in
these, practise with players who follow the
same system, confinino; yourself at first to
the observation of the main features of
the game. You will haye, as the original
leader, an easy rule for openingyour hand,
for you must always hold a suit of at least
four cards, and you will find out that the
small cards of an established suit are just
as effectiye for trick-making, when accom-
panied with trump strength, as aces and
kings, and that they are, moreover, potent
instruments for forcing adverse trumps.

You will soon realize the fact that, from
the constitution of your hand, you will
probably not be able to bring in 3^our long
suit, if established ; still you will have the
satisfaction of knowing that 3"ou have
opened v^our hand in a manner less liable
to entail loss than any other you could
have selected. You will learn, too, that
139

Whist

it is sometimes better to lead from a short
strono; suit than a verv weak lono; suit ;
but you are not a short-suiter for all that,
for such exceptions are noted by all writ-
ers who advocate the long -suit system.
After practising in this way for some time,
if you have any aptitude for the game,
you will be a very acceptable partner for
more advanced players, who, seeing your
willingness to learn, will give you all the
assistance at their command.

When you find that you are pitted
against short -suiters, cover, second hand,
the supporting card led, and, unless you
have a powerful suit to open, generally
return the suits of the adversaries, for it
is part of their strategy to lie in ambush
in the other suits, behind tenaces — major,
minor, double, simple, or potential; the
latter, especially, has a particular charm
for the short-suiter, who hangs on to his
potential, losing tricks, until he is at last
forced to lead from it, and all his bottled-
up potentiality ends in a harmless little
fizz. If your adversaries are followers of
140

Whist

Howell, and of other conventionalists, you
must meet them on their own ground,
which necessitates, however, the arduous
task of learning their various conflicting
methods. But, under all circumstances,
open your long, strong suit w^hen yon
have the lead of the liand.

This multiplicity of systems and innova-
tions tends greatly to destroy the interest
in w^iist, as it discourages those w^ho de-
sire to learn the game, and imposes an
additional and heavy burden on teams
^vho engage in the contests for trophies,
w^io must become thoroughly familiar
with all the various methods of their op-
ponents ; otherwise, those methods would,
for the nonce, be equivalent to private con-
ventions between the players using them,
who would thereby obtain decisive advan-
tages over their adversaries.

The experimental stage through Avhich
whist is now passing in this country ac-
counts for its present chaotic state. The
improvement mania was sure to come, and
141

Whist

it is our misfortune that it came in our
time, spoiling our enjoyment of the game;
but the worst is now probably over, be-
cause the field has apparently been thor-
oughly exploited. As experience in actual
play increases, it becomes more evident
every day that the interest in these novel-
ties is declining, and it is but a question
of time when, with a very few exceptions,
they will be relegated to the limbo where
many other whist fads and hobbies are
now quietly resting.

part llllir

Anglo-American Leads

WHEEE no distinction is made, the
leads are the same in plain suits
and in trumps.
Number in suit means original number.

Ace, King, Queen, Knave

With four in suit, lead king, then
knave.

With five in suit, lead knave, then ace.

With six in suit, lead knave, then king.

With more than six in suit, lead knave,
then queen.

If knave wins, partner can generally
credit you with the ace, besides the
king and queen, as ja good plaj^er, second
hand, will cover the knave with the
ace. ^

This exceptional combination of high
indifferent cards allows you to show a
greater number in suit than any other.

K 145

Whist

Ace, King, Queen

With four in suit, lead king, then queen.
"With five in suit, lead queen, then
ace.

With more than five in suit, lead queen,
then king.

Ace, King, Knave

With four in suit, lead king, then ace.

With more than four in suit, lead ace,
then king.

In truinps^ if there is no special urgen-
cy for two rounds, it is considered justi-
fiable pla}", after leading king or ace,
as the case may be, to change the suit
and finesse the knave on the return, es-
pecially if queen is turned up to your
right.

You may follow the same line of play
in plain suits, but the question of risking
the finesse of the knave will depend on
the fall of the cards, or your strength in
trumps, or 3^our possession of cards of re-
entry in the other suits.

146

Whist

Ace, King, and Small

With four in suit, lead king, then ace.

With more than four in suit, lead ace,
then kino^.

In trumps ace, then king, with five
or more small ones ; otherwise lead fourth-
best, unless the necessity of two rounds is
apparent.

Ace, Queen, Knave, Ten

With four in suit, lead ace, then ten.

With more than four in suit, lead ace,
then knave.

Lead the ten after the knave, to inform
your partner that you still command the
suit with the queen.

Ace, Queen, Knave, and Small

With four in suit, lead ace, then queen.
With more than four in suit, lead ace,
then knave.

Ace, Queen, Ten, Nine

With four or five in suit, lead nine.
With more than five in suit, lead ace,
then nine.

147

Whist

In trumjjs^ lead nine, unless yovi have
more than six trumps, when lead ace,
then nine.

Ace, Queen, Ten

With four or five in suit, lead fourth-best.

With more than five in suit, lead the
ace, then the fourth-best, counting from
and including the ace, which is the origi-
nal fourth-best.

In trumps^ lead the fourth-best, unless
you have more than six trumps, when lead
ace, followed as above.

When knave is turned up to your right,
lead queen.

Ace, Knave, Ten, Nine

With four or five in suit, lead nine.
With more than five in suit, lead ace,
then nine.

In triim/ps^ lead nine, unless you have
more than six trumps, when lead ace, then
nine.

Although these two nine leads range
themselves under the fourth-best system^
148

Whist

they would be led in any case to force an
honor from adverse hands.

Ace and Small

including all long suits headed by ace, oth-
er than those hereinbefore enumerated.

With four or five in suit, lead fourth-best.

"With more than five in suit, lead ace,
then original fourth-best.

In trumps^ lead the fourth - best, unless
you have more than six trumps, when lead
ace, then original fourth-best.

The lead in plain suits, of the fourth-best
with the foregoing combinations headed
by the ace, is a comparatively new depart-
ure from the old system of leading the
ace, and I believe is generally the better
one, when it is the original lead of the
hand. You should, however, be guided
on this point by the state of the score and
your strength in trumps and in the other
suits.

Even with six in suit, you may lead
fourth-best, say, with four good trumps,
149

Whist

and cards of re-entry in the other suits ;
also depending on the state of the score,
as you should play a conservative game
when your score is advanced, and a for-
ward game when the score is adverse.

It may also be noted here that after
you have been forced to trump and have
opened a plain suit, headed by ace, king, or
ace, king, queen, lead the ace first, irre-
spective of number, otherwise your part-
ner, if void of the suit, might trump 3^our
king or Cjueen in order to work the cross-
ruff.

King, Queen, Knave, Ten

With four in suit, lead king, then ten.
With five in suit, lead knave, then
king.

With more than five in suit, lead knave,
then queen.

On the third round lead the ten, to
inform your partner that you still com-
mand the suit with the king or queen, as
the case may be.

150

Whist

King, Queen, Knave

With four in suit, lead king, then knave.

With five in suit, lead knave, then king.

With more than five in suit, lead knave,
then queen.

If the knave wins the trick, lead next
one of your high cards, as the ace is some-
times held back by the opponent — espe-
cially in trumps. If you lead a small
card, the ten and ace may both make in
adversaries' hands.

King, Queen, Ten

With four in suit, lead king.

With more than four in suit, lead queen.

King, Queen, and Small

With four in suit, lead king.

With more than four, lead queen.

If the queen wins, then the fourth-best,
counting from and including the queen —
which is the fourth-best of those remain-
ing in hand.

In trumps^ lead the fourtli-best, unless

151

Whist

you have more than six trumps — when
lead queen, and follow as above.

King, Knave, Ten

Lead ten, even if one of your others is
the nine. If the ten wins the trick, lead
a small card after the ten ; the fourth-best
counting from and including that card, if
the length of the suit admits of that play.

If the ten forces the queen, or both
queen and ace :

With four in suit, lead king after ten.

With more than four in suit, lead knave
after ten.

If the ten forces the ace only, king must
be led after ten.

If you hold the nine also, and the ten
forces an honor, lead the nine on the third
round, to inform your partner that you
still command the suit with the king or
knave, as the case may be.

T?i trumps. With four in suit, lead
fourth-best.

With more than four in suit, lead and
follow as above.

152

Whist

Some players lead the nine ^yhen held
with, king, knave, ten. There is but little
choice between the two leads. I prefer
the ten, because it always shows king and
knave, and limits the number of nine leads
to two.

King, Knave, Nine

In trumps. If ten is turned up to your
right, lead knave.

King and SmaU

including all long suits headed by the
king, other than those hereinbefore enu-
merated.

Lead the fourth-best.

Queen, Knave, Ten, Nine

"With four in suit, lead queen, then
nine.

With more than four in suit, lead
queen, then ten.

On the third round lead the nine, to
inform your partner that you still com-
mand the suit with the knave.

153

Whist

Queen, Knave, Ten

With four in suit, lead queen, then knave.
With more than four in suit, lead queen,
then ten.

Queen, Knave, Nine

III trumps. If ten is turned up to j^our
right, lead queen.

Queen and Small

including all long suits headed by queen,
other than those hereinbefore enumerated.
Lead the fourth-best.

Knave, Ten, Nine, Eight

With four in suit, lead eight (fourth-best),
then knave.

"With five in suit, lead eight, then ten.

With more than five in suit, lead eight,
then nine.

Knave, Ten, Nine

Lead the fourth-best.
In trumps. If king or queen is turned
up to your left, lead knave.

154

Whist

Knave, Ten, Eight

In trumjps. If nine is turned up to your
right, lead knave.

Knave and Small

including all long suits headed by the
knave, other than those hereinbefore enu-
merated.

Lead the fourth-best.

Suits of Four or More Cards Without an
Honor

Lead the fourth-best.

A classification of the foregoing leads,
with reference to the number of leads for
each card, and the conditions under which
they are made, yields the following re-
sults :

Three Ace Leads

I. With king, five or more in suit. In
trumjps^ seven or more in suit, unless knave
is also held, then five or more in suit.

155

Whist

II. With queen, knave, any number in
suit.

III. With any combinations other than
the above, six or more in suit. In tritmps,
seven or more in suit.

Two King Leads

I. With ace and any other two cards.

II. With queen and any other two cards.

Two Queen Leads

I. With the ascending sequence, w^ith
or without tlie ace, five or more in suit.
In trumps, without the ace, seven or more
in suit, unless with the ten, then five or
more in suit.

II. With the descending sequence to the
ten inclusive, four or more in suit.

One Knave Lead

With the ascending sequence, with or
without the ace.

One Ten Lead

With king, knave, any number in suit.
156

Whist

Two ITine Leads

I. With ace, queen, ten, with or witli-
out one small.

II. With ace, knave, ten, with or with-
out one small.

In trumps^ with any number in suit not
exceeding six.

All Other Combinations

The fourth-best is led.

The learner will have perceived from
the analj^sis of the leads, and from the
summary of the same, that the orig-
inal leads from all combinations of the
cards are not so numerous, after all. As
to the second lead, he ought generally
to be able to determine for himself the
card to be led when he is left with high
indifferent cards of the suit, if only he
bear in mind the principle involved in
the leads from the typical combination
of ace, queen, knave, where the queen is
led after the ace when the suit is short,
157

Whist

and where the knave is led after the ace
when the suit is long. Therefore, the
longer the suit, the smaller the card to be
led on the second round, and tiie selection
of the right card is thus made eas}^ for
the beginner.

My task is done. I would be better
contented with it if a certain personal pro^
noun did not make itself so conspicuous
all through it. Suppression was tried in
vain ; it would not down. So I crave my
reader's indulgence for this obtrusive ego-
tist, in consideration of the earnest effort
made to give them an insight into the
development of American Leads, and to
restore confidence in the long- suit game
as played in combination with the Anglo-
American system of leads, which, after
all, appears to be the most satisfactory
yet devised.

THE END

HAKPER'S AMEEICAN ESSAYISTS

OTHER TIMES AXD OTHER SEASONS. By Laurence

HUTTON.

A LITTLE ENGLISH GALLERY. By Louise Imogen

GCINEY.

LITERARY AND SOCIAL SILHOUETTES. By Hjalmar
Hjorth Boyesen.

STUDIES OF THE STAGE. By Bkander Matthews.

AMERICANISMS AND BRITICISMS, with Other Essays
on Other Isms. By Brander Matthews.

AS WE GO. By Charles Dudley Warner. With Illus-
tration?.

AS WE WERE SAYING. By Charles Dudley Warner.
With Illustrations.

FROM THE EASY CHAIR. By George William Curtis.
FROM THE EASY CHAIR. Second Series. By George

William Curtis.
FROM THE EASY CHAIR. Third Series. By George

William Curtis.
CRITICISM AND FICTION. By William Dean Howells.
FROM THE BOOKS OF LAURENCE HUTTON.
CONCERNING ALL OF US. By Thomas Wentworth

HiGGINSON.

THE WORK OF JOHN RUSKIN. By Charles Waldstein.

PICTURE AND TEXT. By Henry James. With Hlus-
trations.

With Portraits. 16mo, Cloth, $1 00 each.

HARPER & BROTHERS, Publishers

NEW YORK AND LONDON

M^Any of the above works will he sent by mail, postage prepaid^
to any part of the United States, Canada, or Mexico, on receipt of the price.

HAEPEE'S
C 0 X T E M P 0 E A E Y ESSAYISTS

THE PERSOXAL EQUATIOX. By Harry Thurston Pecel
This is a volame of striking and suggestive essays on widely differ-
ent themes. — X F. Observer.

The themes are varied, bearing on literature, biography, politics, edu-
cation, and other subjects claiming the attention of thoughtful people. —
Philadelphia Telegraph.

CERTAIN ACCEPTED HEROES, and Other Essays in Lit-
erature and Politics. By Henry Cabot Lodge.
Nine readable, able, and thoughtful essays on literature and bio-
graphical subjects written at different times and now collected together.

— Brooklyn Stxindard- Union.

HO\Y TO TELL A STORY, and 0:her Essavs. Bv Mark
Twain.

It is diflScuIt to suggest a volame more likely to furnish entertain-
ment than this splendid collection of sketches by a wellnigh inimita-
ble author. —.V: :'' Orleans States.

BOOK AXD HEART. Essays on Literature and Life. By
Thomas Wentworth Higginson.

There is in this volume a most engaging mixture of learning, anec-
dote, and opinion, and the time spent over its pages is well spent. —
Brooklyn Eagle.

THE RELATIOX OF LITERATURE TO LIFE. By

Charles Dudley Warner.

Thoughiful. scholarly, and witty discourses, in a form convenieui
for reference. — Springfield Bepuhlican.

IMPRESSIOXS AXD EXPERIEXCES. By W. D. Howells.

"^e fail to see how anyone who loves to spend the leisure moments
of the day in the company of a strong and original mind can help sub-
mitting to the charm of these essays. — Exarainer, X, Y.

ASPECTS OF FICTIOX, and Other Ventures in Criticism.
By Brander Matthews.

Full of sound, entertaining, and illuminating criticism. — Advance,
Chicago.

Post Si'O, Clotli^ Ornamental^ Uncv.t Edges and Gilt Tops.,
%\ 50 eacli.

HARPER k BROTHERS. Publishers

NEW YORK AXD LOXDOX

l^^Any of i'lz v; : . : . .. ' : sent by mail, postage prepaid, to
any part of the Tr^r.: c a or Mexico, on receipt of the price.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Whist; American leads and their history; with a review of later innovations in the game"

See other formats